old country geezers out on camel county 107.9 fm hd2

[davideduardo]

Total commercial time in an hour was most likely 18 minutes (the NAB standard for the time).

And there you have hit on a key point.

Stations in the 50's and 60's, if successful, ran as near 18 minutes as possible.

The NAB code, eliminated as being a form of collusion, recommended 18 minutes.

But the FCC went into fighting mode over 18+ minute hours. And that's because renewals came every three years, and part of the process was submitting logs for a composite week... a Monday from one year and month, a Tuesday from a different year or at least month, and so on to complete a 7-day week. If any hour had over 18 minutes of commercials, you pretty much had to submit an explanation or the FCC would ask for one. And that, in the era of cross filings, was a dangerous situation to be in.

The lower spot loads of FM following the 1967 simulcast ban came part out of synergistic strategy and part out of the fact that FMs couldn't sell 18 minutes of anything. Some, like the Shulke and Bonneville stations, insisted on 8 minutes an hour... but as time went on, FM became as commercialized as the 50's and 60's AMs and we are back around 14 to 18 minutes depending on the format.

Still, most music FMs have about 25% fewer spots than music AMs of the 60's did.

 

[johndavis]

But for Oldies, Classic Country, Standards/Big Band etc. it can be a big mistake to move out of those genres (and I submit that adding music which isn't part of the definition of the genre fits that description). I'm guessing in your example that the needle wasn't moved too far, too fast or there would have been some sort of listener disruption (unless, of course, they were aiming for a younger demo who didn't appreciate the old stuff).

If you properly research the market, you're talking to people who are fans of your radio station.

Sometimes they tell you things you don't expect.

If you're smart, you listen to them.

 

[TheBigA]

All I am saying is that it is not good common sense to ignore the old folks as a group. TV does not. Billboards do not. Newspapers do not. Only radio, it seems, has become a niche advertising medium and tends to suffer as a result.

Someone has to pay for the free content. If advertisers don't, and increasingly they aren't buying newspapers either, then that content goes away. Those of us in the business who'd like to do radio shows in those formats either go to Sirius or non-commercial radio. Hopefully the listeners will go there too and bring their wallets. Since older listeners have more disposable income, they should put it towards the radio.

 

[TheBigA]

I've studied airchecks from the 60s for a few decades now, and I can't think of a single example of a station that had four minutes worth of commercials in any single break, much less four minutes between every song.

My point is that the spot load today isn't worse than it was 40 years ago. There are fewer breaks, and they just happen to be longer. But total time per hour is about the same.

 

[michael hagerty]

I've studied airchecks from the 60s for a few decades now, and I can't think of a single example of a station that had four minutes worth of commercials in any single break, much less four minutes between every song.

My point is that the spot load today isn't worse than it was 40 years ago. There are fewer breaks, and they just happen to be longer. But total time per hour is about the same.

Overall, I don't disagree. If you listened to WABC and they were running 18 minutes an hour, they'd spread it out. Now, that'd be three six-minute breaks or two nine-minute breaks.

But for those of us who grew up with the Drake/RKO strict limits on both minutes per hour and seconds/units per break, then the spot load is higher. Worse still for those people slightly younger (now in their 40s) who were listening when the AMs tried to combat the FMs by instituting even stricter spot load limits in the early-mid 70's ("KHJ, Los Angeles...with up to 52 minutes of music this hour!").

 

[pattiwacki]

That is exactly the attitude that folks had from 1946 to 1967 in regards to FM. "Oh, it's FM and we don't want it to affect the ratings of the money making AM sister station. So put something on it that will not compete with the AM."

Once FM became competitive, after the FCC simulcast edict, it became profitable and got ratings.

So are you saying that HD radio will only be successful if Congress mandates HD radios?

Personally, I don't know if enough radios are being purchased these days that a mandate would work. Radio just isn't as big a part of broadcast entertainment as it once was. For $60 I bought a used multimedia PC and set it up as a feed for Internet streaming/downloads to my audio and video systems. If OTA radio disappeared tomorrow I would not miss it a bit.

I listen to Pandora and Tune In Radio most of the time but I tune in to The Lovable One, Jim Sharpe and Broomie at times just to hear what's going on locally.

 

[landtuna]

I listen to Pandora and Tune In Radio most of the time but I tune in to The Lovable One, Jim Sharpe and Broomie at times just to hear what's going on locally.

Don't get me wrong.....I don't want OTA radio to disappear. I am just disappointed in local offerings so tend to go to the 'Net to get what I want.

 

[TheBigA]

Worse still for those people slightly younger (now in their 40s) who were listening when the AMs tried to combat the FMs by instituting even stricter spot load limits in the early-mid 70's ("KHJ, Los Angeles...with up to 52 minutes of music this hour!").

I think that's similar to loss leaders you're seeing now in internet radio, and even satellite. They know commercials are a tune-out. That's why they go commercial-free when they flip formats. They want to attract listeners who want music, not commercials. And some music stations have lowered their spot load to compete. Some stations in Houston did that for a while. But as I said earlier, the audience sees commercials as interruptions. Programmers call them "stop-sets." When you stop the music, the listeners have a chance to go. So you want to minimize the number of times that happens.

 

[phil]

I often wonder what would happen if one station had their stop set earlier than the rest. Let's say everyone schedules their break at :10. Station A moves their break to :04, so that when the rest of the stations take their break at :10, A is back to music. Wouldn't A then capture those that jump around, and hold them until them next break?

Which brings up the question: why do they all take breaks at the same time? Is this by agreement? TV stations do the same. Who determines when the breaks will be?

 

[johndavis]

I often wonder what would happen if one station had their stop set earlier than the rest. Let's say everyone schedules their break at :10. Station A moves their break to :04, so that when the rest of the stations take their break at :10, A is back to music. Wouldn't A then capture those that jump around, and hold them until them next break?

Which brings up the question: why do they all take breaks at the same time? Is this by agreement? TV stations do the same. Who determines when the breaks will be?

Oh, we used to play this game all the time back when there was a 3 way CHR race between KOY-FM, KKFR, and KZZP. Everyone ran breaks around 4:00 in length, so you'd try to get in at least 3 minutes ahead of the others so if someone punched out they'd punch back right as you were coming out of spots. The game would end when someone came too close to starting their first break around :15 because everyone wants to win that first quarter hour. Once a station camped out around :18 nobody would try to get in front of that. The sweet spots in the hour were to break around :20 and :40. That always seemed to do the least amount of damage.

Today, the conventional wisdom with PPM is that stopsets do the least amount of damage at :15 and :45. Some stations will still try to beat the others into the break, but still, nobody likes to stop in the first quarter hour.

 

[davideduardo]

Today, the conventional wisdom with PPM is that stopsets do the least amount of damage at :15 and :45. Some stations will still try to beat the others into the break, but still, nobody likes to stop in the first quarter hour.

And with further analysis, it seems that going in twice an hour at either :12 and 42 or :27 and :57 is the best. Since you have to get a detection in PPM in 5 minutes of each quarter hour to get credit, then the last 3 to 4 minutes of each are kind of dead zones... anyone who tunes in does not give you the quarter hour. So stations feel that the least damaging point to start a stopset is about 3 minutes before the end of each quarter hour.

 

[oldiesfan6479]

And with further analysis, it seems that going in twice an hour at either :12 and 42 or :27 and :57 is the best. Since you have to get
a detection in PPM in 5 minutes of each quarter hour to get credit, then the last 3 to 4 minutes of each are kind of dead zones...

I wondered why KOOL-FM had gone to the :12 and :42 stopsets! Now I know.

But those 7-8 minute breaks are dreadful. You regularly hear spots for more
than one car dealer in the same break. If I were an advertiser, I wouldn't
like it. Or just being number eight of twelve consecutive spots!

I had gotten used to the :20/:35/:50 stopset pattern.

 

[KeithE4]

But those 7-8 minute breaks are dreadful. You regularly hear spots for more than one car dealer in the same break. If I were an advertiser, I wouldn't like it. Or just being number eight of twelve consecutive spots!

How many people really stick around for those long breaks? I change the station if there are more than 4 ads in a row. And I don't change it back for awhile. And that's when I'm actually listening to a commercial radio station, which is becoming more and more rare.

I had gotten used to the :20/:35/:50 stopset pattern.

I've gotten used to turning off commercial radio and listening to my music on my smartphone in my car. There is almost nothing on commercial radio that I am interested in anymore, nor are they interested in me. Too bad for them. I don't even listen to terrestrial radio at home anymore, other than sports on KTAR and the Sunday night blues show on KJZZ.

 

[johndavis]

How many people really stick around for those long breaks? I change the station if there are more than 4 ads in a row. And I don't change it back for awhile.

I think most radio programmers will agree with you that the chances of you making it through an 8 minute break are slim if you're actively listening to the station.

That's part of the reason everyone now is setting appointments. "Coming up at 2:37 we've got your chance to win..." "Hang on, at 3:25 we've got our conversation with (artist)..."

We know you're going to tune out for some reason or another, so we want to give you a reason to remember to come back.

 

[KeithE4]

How many people really stick around for those long breaks? I change the station if there are more than 4 ads in a row. And I don't change it back for awhile.

I think most radio programmers will agree with you that the chances of you making it through an 8 minute break are slim if you're actively listening to the station.

That's part of the reason everyone now is setting appointments. "Coming up at 2:37 we've got your chance to win..." "Hang on, at 3:25 we've got our conversation with (artist)..."

We know you're going to tune out for some reason or another, so we want to give you a reason to remember to come back.

Wouldn't that make the advertisers who's ads run during that break a little mad - especially if they know the station expects listeners to tune out and as a result, their ads won't be heard?

Sounds to me like smaller-but-more-often stopsets (2 minutes max, but after every 4th song/15 minutes or thereabouts) would make more sense. I can deal with a couple minutes of commercials, but anything longer and it's "see ya!"

 

[TheBigA]

I think most radio programmers will agree with you that the chances of you making it through an 8 minute break are slim if you're actively listening to the station.

The "actively listening" thing is the catch. That's maybe 20%. And what percentage of that group wants to expend the energy to change the station? If the station is playing in a store or workplace, they won't change the station. That's why the studies that have been done on this subject have said the vast majority stay through the entire break. Maybe not actively, maybe not with full attention, but the radio remains on. Part of why repetition of spots is so important.

 

[landtuna]

The "actively listening" thing is the catch. That's maybe 20%. And what percentage of that group wants to expend the energy to change the station?

The same thing happens when listing and a commercial comes on as when a song is played you can't stand - you hit the pre-set immediately. If you are saying that in normal listening only 1/5th of the audience is paying attention then you have just dismissed radio as any sort of efficient advertising medium.

If the station is playing in a store or workplace, they won't change the station.

Well, DUH! If you are captive in a doctor's office or somewhere where you are just waiting rather than actively shopping you will undoubtedly pay attention. If searching for a thingamajig in Home Depot it's just background noise.

That's why the studies that have been done on this subject have said the vast majority stay through the entire break. Maybe not actively, maybe not with full attention, but the radio remains on.

The radio might remain on but the station doesn't. Long commercial breaks have become the norm so when the commercial break first starts I hit the change button because experience has taught me the next 10 minutes will be a waste of my time. The exception, as someone already mentioned, is if a teaser has been planted so try to keep the listener. Note to PD - there is nothing I want to hear bad enough that I will tolerate 10 wasted minutes. Also applies to news broadcasts.

Part of why repetition of spots is so important.

I'll swear you just told me a day or so ago that advertisers don't target old farts partly because they have to repeat the message so often and therefore are not cost effective.

Which is it?

 

[TheBigA]

The same thing happens when listing and a commercial comes on as when a song is played you can't stand - you hit the pre-set immediately. If you are saying that in normal listening only 1/5th of the audience is paying attention then you have just dismissed radio as any sort of efficient advertising medium.

Once again, you're posting your own personal or observed experience. While that's nice, it's not useful to advertising agencies, who commission their own studies, covering many more people.

As I said, studies show the vast majority of people DON'T hit the pre-set, either when a commercial comes on, or even when a song they can't stand comes on. MOST people are lazy.

I'll swear you just told me a day or so ago that advertisers don't target old farts partly because they have to repeat the message so often and therefore are not cost effective.

Which is it?

They have to repeat the message regardless of the age of the listener. The reason they don't target older listeners is that they don't buy products based on advertising. As you yourself have admitted. In that case, your experience fits with the model.

 

[landtuna]

Once again, you're posting your own personal or observed experience. While that's nice, it's not useful to advertising agencies, who commission their own studies, covering many more people.

Sorry, but I think someone is being sold a bill of goods. I can remember over my lifetime a significant number of my peers being even worse than me. And that goes back to the days when commercial blocks were much, much shorter than 8-10 minutes.

The other thing, as I've said before and KeithE4 has agreed, is that an advertiser whose ad is down in the middle or end of the commercial set has got to be concerned that nobody is listening even if they haven't changed the channel. To suggest otherwise makes no common sense. It might however show how good the sales staff is at throwing the BS....er, I mean sales.

They have to repeat the message regardless of the age of the listener. The reason they don't target older listeners is that they don't buy products based on advertising. As you yourself have admitted. In that case, your experience fits with the model.

I haven't bought based on advertising my whole life. I learned at a very young age that advertising, like politics, is lying by commission, omission or fraud. The majority of the people I know are much the same way. We ask friends and co-workers for their experiences. We do research (greatly enhanced since the coming of the Internet). Buying products based upon advertising is akin to voting for politicians based upon their campaign ads or asking the salesperson for a recommendation.

I suspect that advertising prohibition is based on the assumption that old people live on Social Security and could not afford the product in the first place. In today's economy the recently retired folks are likely to be the only people with money to spend. Radio ads seem to be directed at younger folks who buy based primarily upon price. Compared to the top tier of national TV ads most of the ads I take time to listen to on radio come across as junk.

 

[TheBigA]

I suspect that advertising prohibition is based on the assumption that old people live on Social Security and could not afford the product in the first place.

As I've already said over a dozen times in this thread, the reason they don't advertise to older folks is because, as you've admitted, you aren't swayed by advertising. So why should anyone waste their money on you? In fact, why should I waste my time explaining this to you since you obviously aren't paying attention. You are the perfect example why people your age are being ignored by radio advertisers. You can only hear what you and people who agree with you say, and you're not interested in anything else. It's a waste of money advertising to you, and it's a waste of time explaining it to you. Good bye.