"Oldies" Are Being Recruited

[KlunkLetter]

12.30.05 "States rushing to lure retirees" USA TODAY, P1A (Clarisse Jones) in part:

"States and towns across the nation are stepping up recruiting efforts to persuade (baby) boomers to move there and boost local economies with their spending powers." It lists several areas where this is happening.

It goes on to talk about the spending powers of the soon to be 60ish crowd. Hmmm, seems to contradict what a lot of radio consultants claim.

Oldies radio, are you listening???

 

[OldiesCat]

"Oldies"

This has nothing to with the oh-so-easy "consultants claim". You can do better than blame "the consultants".

Sad as it may be, the major radio groups see little future (sales potential) in 60+ audiences. Let's also not assume that just because somebody is 55+, they want oldies or will even listen to them on the radio. Many prefer country, talk, soft AC or a variety of other avaialable formats. It's not a slam-dunk, just because somebody is in a certain demo they'd automaticaly listen to the Oldies format (or any radio, for that matter).

Many of us see the disposable income and willingness to spend by upper end boomers- unfortunately, the message either isn't getting through or IS getting through but being dismissed.


>
> It goes on to talk about the spending powers of the soon to
> be 60ish crowd. Hmmm, seems to contradict what a lot of
> radio consultants claim.
>
> Oldies radio, are you listening???
>

 

[Oldbones]

Re: "Oldies"

> Sad as it may be, the major radio groups see little future
> (sales potential) in 60+ audiences. Let's also not assume
> that just because somebody is 55+, they want oldies or will
> even listen to them on the radio. Many prefer country,
> talk, soft AC or a variety of other avaialable formats.
> It's not a slam-dunk, just because somebody is in a certain
> demo they'd automaticaly listen to the Oldies format (or any
> radio, for that matter).
>
> Many of us see the disposable income and willingness to
> spend by upper end boomers- unfortunately, the message
> either isn't getting through or IS getting through but being
> dismissed.

This is a key point that's being missed by the crowd bleating for oldies radio to "get back to where it once belonged" (so to speak)....just because a person grew up listening to Top 40 radio 40+ years ago doesn't mean they necessarily want to listen to it on a regular basis today. I'm in my mid 50s and while I occasionally enjoy hearing the music of my youth, I don't want a steady diet of it. Most people I know are not the type who want to live in the past.

While I think it's a mistake for advertisers to ignore the over-55 crowd, they are a much tougher sell than someone, say in their 20s whose buying habits are not well-ingrained.

 

[KlunkLetter]

Re: "Oldies"

> This has nothing to with the oh-so-easy "consultants claim".
> You can do better than blame "the consultants".
>
> Sad as it may be, the major radio groups see little future
> (sales potential) in 60+ audiences. Let's also not assume
> that just because somebody is 55+, they want oldies or will
> even listen to them on the radio. Many prefer country,
> talk, soft AC or a variety of other avaialable formats.
> It's not a slam-dunk, just because somebody is in a certain
> demo they'd automaticaly listen to the Oldies format (or any
> radio, for that matter).
>
> Many of us see the disposable income and willingness to
> spend by upper end boomers- unfortunately, the message
> either isn't getting through or IS getting through but being
> dismissed.
>
Gee, sorry Oldies for hitting a nerve on the consultant comment. However, you can't argue that most of radio is ignoring the boomers. This article is saying that they do have a substantial disposal income. There has been major conversation on this board and others saying that boomers won't have much disposal income--that they will squeak out a living on SS--and that is why radio shys away from them.

Taking your comment one step futher: Let's not assume that boomers WON'T listen to oldies. Radio--and its consultants--needs to learn how to market to this large group of listeners. It is something that communites all over the country seem to be doing.


> >
> > It goes on to talk about the spending powers of the soon
> to
> > be 60ish crowd. Hmmm, seems to contradict what a lot of
> > radio consultants claim.
> >
> > Oldies radio, are you listening???
> >
>

 

[KlunkLetter]

Re: "Oldies"

> > Sad as it may be, the major radio groups see little future
>
> > (sales potential) in 60+ audiences. Let's also not assume
>
> > that just because somebody is 55+, they want oldies or
> will
> > even listen to them on the radio. Many prefer country,
> > talk, soft AC or a variety of other avaialable formats.
> > It's not a slam-dunk, just because somebody is in a
> certain
> > demo they'd automaticaly listen to the Oldies format (or
> any
> > radio, for that matter).
> >
> > Many of us see the disposable income and willingness to
> > spend by upper end boomers- unfortunately, the message
> > either isn't getting through or IS getting through but
> being
> > dismissed.
>
> This is a key point that's being missed by the crowd
> bleating for oldies radio to "get back to where it once
> belonged" (so to speak)....just because a person grew up
> listening to Top 40 radio 40+ years ago doesn't mean they
> necessarily want to listen to it on a regular basis today.
> I'm in my mid 50s and while I occasionally enjoy hearing the
> music of my youth, I don't want a steady diet of it. Most
> people I know are not the type who want to live in the past.
>
>
> While I think it's a mistake for advertisers to ignore the
> over-55 crowd, they are a much tougher sell than someone,
> say in their 20s whose buying habits are not well-ingrained.
>
Nowhere in my comment did I say that radio needed to "get back to where it once belonged . . . ." The point, contrary to what has been stated on this board by so-called experts, is there is a HUGE boomer audience with a lot of disposal income that is being ignored by radio.

While I'm also in my mid 50's, I enjoy some of the newer music, but I don't want a steady diet of it. You equate enjoying music of the past, with living in the past--how, and why, do you make that comparison?

 

[DougD]

Older listeners being served?

Please point out exactly where in radio older listeners (50+) are being served on commercial radio.

Music of Your Life? Smooth Jazz?

Hot hits?

Talk radio that programs primarily one-sided conservative shows?


Record companies won't dare sign any artist over 40 years of age. Won't put out new music by anyone that might in any way appeal to older audiences.
That's why radio and record companies so hated Bobby Darin when he shifted to standards. It's all one big racket aimed at the wasted youth. Isn't youth wasted on the young?

There 'taint hardly a format out there - besides "oldies" - that appeals primarily to older listeners.


> > Sad as it may be, the major radio groups see little future
>
> > (sales potential) in 60+ audiences. Let's also not assume
>
> > that just because somebody is 55+, they want oldies or
> will
> > even listen to them on the radio. Many prefer country,
> > talk, soft AC or a variety of other avaialable formats.
> > It's not a slam-dunk, just because somebody is in a
> certain
> > demo they'd automaticaly listen to the Oldies format (or
> any
> > radio, for that matter).
> >
> > Many of us see the disposable income and willingness to
> > spend by upper end boomers- unfortunately, the message
> > either isn't getting through or IS getting through but
> being
> > dismissed.
>
> This is a key point that's being missed by the crowd
> bleating for oldies radio to "get back to where it once
> belonged" (so to speak)....just because a person grew up
> listening to Top 40 radio 40+ years ago doesn't mean they
> necessarily want to listen to it on a regular basis today.
> I'm in my mid 50s and while I occasionally enjoy hearing the
> music of my youth, I don't want a steady diet of it. Most
> people I know are not the type who want to live in the past.
>
>
> While I think it's a mistake for advertisers to ignore the
> over-55 crowd, they are a much tougher sell than someone,
> say in their 20s whose buying habits are not well-ingrained.
>

 

[peppertree]

Oh? I was led to believe that those of us over fifty do not buy things anymore.

What gives?

> 12.30.05 "States rushing to lure retirees" USA TODAY, P1A
> (Clarisse Jones) in part:
>
> "States and towns across the nation are stepping up
> recruiting efforts to persuade (baby) boomers to move there
> and boost local economies with their spending powers." It
> lists several areas where this is happening.
>
> It goes on to talk about the spending powers of the soon to
> be 60ish crowd. Hmmm, seems to contradict what a lot of
> radio consultants claim.
>
> Oldies radio, are you listening???
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[DougD]

Satellite radio looks so much better each and every day.

Anyone with graying hair doesn't mean a thing to the geniuses in radio and in the ad agencies.

We will show them how little we think of them.

Satellite radio looks so much better each and every day.



> Oh? I was led to believe that those of us over fifty do not
> buy things anymore.
>
> What gives?
>
> > 12.30.05 "States rushing to lure retirees" USA TODAY, P1A
> > (Clarisse Jones) in part:
> >
> > "States and towns across the nation are stepping up
> > recruiting efforts to persuade (baby) boomers to move
> there
> > and boost local economies with their spending powers." It
>
> > lists several areas where this is happening.
> >
> > It goes on to talk about the spending powers of the soon
> to
> > be 60ish crowd. Hmmm, seems to contradict what a lot of
> > radio consultants claim.
> >
> > Oldies radio, are you listening???
> >
>

 

[Oldiesaholic]

Re: Satellite radio looks so much better each and every day.

> Anyone with graying hair doesn't mean a thing to the
> geniuses in radio and in the ad agencies.
>
> We will show them how little we think of them.
>
> Satellite radio looks so much better each and every day.
>
>It sounds better too!
Happy New Year from Oldiesaholic.
>
> > Oh? I was led to believe that those of us over fifty do
> not
> > buy things anymore.
> >
> > What gives?
> >
> > > 12.30.05 "States rushing to lure retirees" USA TODAY,
> P1A
> > > (Clarisse Jones) in part:
> > >
> > > "States and towns across the nation are stepping up
> > > recruiting efforts to persuade (baby) boomers to move
> > there
> > > and boost local economies with their spending powers."
> It
> >
> > > lists several areas where this is happening.
> > >
> > > It goes on to talk about the spending powers of the soon
>
> > to
> > > be 60ish crowd. Hmmm, seems to contradict what a lot of
>
> > > radio consultants claim.
> > >
> > > Oldies radio, are you listening???
> > >
> >
>

 

[KenClark]

Re: Older listeners being served?

> Please point out exactly where in radio older listeners
> (50+) are being served on commercial radio.

This can't be answered until a definition is provided for "service" to "older listeners." How old? What kind of service?

From my experience in Standards, what we're watching now is a fragmenting of the Standards audience into old-school and new-school groups! There's a definite generation gap that has developed in the format!

For the first time that I can ever recall, my Standards station is actually tracking *younger* than Oldies!

I don't know of too many 50+ people who are as regimented in their listening as they once were. I'm not convinced that throwing the same ol' pile of Oldies at them is going to work any more. There's nothing wrong with the music, but the audience seems to have grown too diverse for that approach. I'm almost 50 myself, and I've listened the "songs I grew up with" so many times that I can't even hear them any more. I'm not the same guy I was in high school, so how can I still relate to the music? I think there are a lot of people feeling the same thing.

>
> Record companies won't dare sign any artist over 40 years of
> age.

Guess we can scratch that Regis Philbin Christmas album that did so well..? And, Peggy March put out a CD in 2005...she's hardly a teenager...

Won't put out new music by anyone that might in any way
> appeal to older audiences.

Michael Bublé, Diana Krall, Steve Tyrell...and Peggy March!

> That's why radio and record companies so hated Bobby Darin
> when he shifted to standards.

Maybe back then. He's a true idol *now*!!

It's all one big racket aimed
> at the wasted youth. Isn't youth wasted on the young?

Funny that the younger people are driving the renewed interest in Standards and Big Band music! Funny that so many youth revere Sinatra as much as their grandparents did.

The Standards format is re-inventing itself bit by bit. Can/Will Oldies do the same? Or is the music tied to only to the era in which it was recorded?

>
> There 'taint hardly a format out there - besides "oldies" -
> that appeals primarily to older listeners.

If we're only going to offer them "pigeonhole" format choices, then I guess I would agree. As I stated above, I think today's listener has tastes that are more diverse than that. They certainly push buttons enough! So how is Oldies going to adapt?

No, I don't have all the answers. Just some thoughts...

Regards,
Ken Clark

 

[smashedcd]

Re: Satellite radio looks so much better each and every day.

see my sig



> Anyone with graying hair doesn't mean a thing to the
> geniuses in radio and in the ad agencies.
>
> We will show them how little we think of them.
>
> Satellite radio looks so much better each and every day.
>
>
>
> > Oh? I was led to believe that those of us over fifty do
> not
> > buy things anymore.
> >
> > What gives?
> >
> > > 12.30.05 "States rushing to lure retirees" USA TODAY,
> P1A
> > > (Clarisse Jones) in part:
> > >
> > > "States and towns across the nation are stepping up
> > > recruiting efforts to persuade (baby) boomers to move
> > there
> > > and boost local economies with their spending powers."
> It
> >
> > > lists several areas where this is happening.
> > >
> > > It goes on to talk about the spending powers of the soon
>
> > to
> > > be 60ish crowd. Hmmm, seems to contradict what a lot of
>
> > > radio consultants claim.
> > >
> > > Oldies radio, are you listening???
> > >
> >
>
<P ID="signature">______________
note to the NAB..satellite radio..its worth paying for!!</P>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Older listeners being served?

> Please point out exactly where in radio older listeners
> (50+) are being served on commercial radio.
>
> Music of Your Life? Smooth Jazz?
>
> Hot hits?
>
> Talk radio that programs primarily one-sided conservative
> shows?

In general, 55+ is not being served as there is little ad revenue to be had by doning that. Many formats have a 55+ component, but it does not add to the sales value in most cases.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: "Oldies"

> >
> Nowhere in my comment did I say that radio needed to "get
> back to where it once belonged . . . ." The point, contrary
> to what has been stated on this board by so-called experts,
> is there is a HUGE boomer audience with a lot of disposal
> income that is being ignored by radio.

Radio has nothing to do with this, as some of us hve explained over and over. Advertisers have very little interest in 55+ listeners, so they do not buy ads on 55+ radio stations. When they do, we will have 55+ formats. Until then, we won't. It's really thata simple, too.

 

[KlunkLetter]

Re: "Oldies"

> > >
> > Nowhere in my comment did I say that radio needed to "get
> > back to where it once belonged . . . ." The point,
> contrary
> > to what has been stated on this board by so-called
> experts,
> > is there is a HUGE boomer audience with a lot of disposal
> > income that is being ignored by radio.
>
> Radio has nothing to do with this, as some of us hve
> explained over and over. Advertisers have very little
> interest in 55+ listeners, so they do not buy ads on 55+
> radio stations. When they do, we will have 55+ formats.
> Until then, we won't. It's really thata simple, too.
>
The same ole argument from one of the biggest voices on the boomers not having much disposal income.

Radio has left the boomers . . . the boomers have not left radio.

 

[OldiesCat]

"Oldies"

You didn't "hit a nerve" so much as just harp on a non-issue.

"The consultants" so often referred to and criticized have little general influence today compared to 20 years ago (due to consolidation, few are even used anymore). Blaming "the consultants" should really be re-directed at GMs and PDs who never understood how to use consultants as a resource (vs. making them the excuse for not succeeding). It's always been easier to "blame the consultants" by limp & lame GMs and PDs who had no vision of their own and pass the buck as an act of self-preservation.

> >
> Gee, sorry Oldies for hitting a nerve on the consultant
> comment. However, you can't argue that most of radio is
> ignoring the boomers. This article is saying that they do
> have a substantial disposal income. There has been major
> conversation on this board and others saying that boomers
> won't have much disposal income--that they will squeak out a
> living on SS--and that is why radio shys away from them.
>
> Taking your comment one step futher: Let's not assume that
> boomers WON'T listen to oldies. Radio--and its
> consultants--needs to learn how to market to this large
> group of listeners. It is something that communites all
> over the country seem to be doing.
>
>
> > >
> > > It goes on to talk about the spending powers of the soon
>
> > to
> > > be 60ish crowd. Hmmm, seems to contradict what a lot of
>
> > > radio consultants claim.
> > >
> > > Oldies radio, are you listening???
> > >
> >
>

 

[OldiesCat]

"Oldies"

But, he is right.

They DO have the income but it's not $$$ advertisers are currently interested in. Whether that's a correct or incorrect strategy by advertisers is beside the point. It is what it is.


> The same ole argument from one of the biggest voices on the
> boomers not having much disposal income.
>
> Radio has left the boomers . . . the boomers have not left radio.
>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: "Oldies"

> >
> The same ole argument from one of the biggest voices on the
> boomers not having much disposal income.

Whether they are right or wrong is immaterial. The fct is that advertisers in general do not want to reach the 55+ group.

1. Costs too much to make a sale due to brand preferneces.
2. The myth of boomer wealth.
3. Most products not designed for 55+
4. Fer of the "Oldsmobile syndrome" (very real)
>
> Radio has left the boomers . . . the boomers have not left
> radio.

Actually, 12-17 and 55+ have lower radio TSL and usage than 18-54.

Since radio can not mke money serving 55+, they do not program to it.
>

 

[LeeSmith]

Re: "Oldies"

Hi Folks:

I write from the perspective of a former owner of a stand-alone FM in a 750,000 person market that programmed to people over 45. My age is 56 and came up through the "Ops Side" of radio. Format was a combination of Adult Standards mixed with suitable Oldies. I pulled an on-air shift on Saturday night just to make sure I remained in touch with the equipment and audience. About a year ago, I sold out.

David Eduardo has nailed it right in the middle of the bullseye. The first thing to understand is that advertising agency time buyers ultimately program radio stations. This previously unkown-to-me revelation came as a surprise and was a very hard learned lesson. It almost cost me my life savings and house.

Ad agency buyers control where the advertising dollars are placed and they buy numbers based on what their client wants for demos. If they are not placed with your station, you go broke. The time buyers I met were typically in their mid to late 30's.

To avoid going broke and the station going dark, you have to chase the money so you can pay the bills. That's the harsh reality. From a business perspective, if that means programming schlock crud that you'd never personally listen to, so be it. You do what you need to do so the doors stay open and the transmitter power bill remains out of the hands of a collection agency.

Our 5.5 share was made up of a very loyal audience. Despite our best attempts, we were just about never able to crack and refute the reseach material circulated among ad agencies which tells them older listeners just weren't worth spending the money on. Managers of Ad Agencies readily agreed that the "elderly" do indeed control the majority of wealth in the country and are in decision making positions of power in companies by the time they are over 55.

The reasons repeatedly told to us were:

1- Entrenched buying patterns. IE; If you've brushed your teeth with Crest for 30 years, how many radio commercials do you think it would take to make you buy your first tube of Colgate no matter how much you enjoyed the radio station? It is just not considered to be an economical expenditure of clients money for the return on investment.

2- Non-impulsive buying habits. IE: If you are going to buy a new car, someone "older" is going to buy based on a lot more research that an ad for "Joe's Used Cars" saying they have a nice Mustang on the lot and your girlfriend says "Gee, you'd look cool in that."

Radio has indeed left .. or are in the process of .... leaving the older listener. They have to if they are going to survive.

There are some accounts that want to reach the older listener, but they are few & far between. There are only so many funeral parlors, wheel chair dealers, hearing aid companies, National Will Kits, retirement investment fund managers, etc. which specialize in serving customers over 55. There are just not enough of these accounts to provide a sufficiently large economic base to run a radio station with on a long term basis. Further, listeners react adversely to a diet of sponsors which tell them "you're gonna kick the bucket soon, so you'd better prepare now!" Further, the smaller accounts not represented by agencies required a lot of maintenance which out of porportion to the revenues generated.

The super-unfortunate thing about radio is the fact that in North America this is a business with basically a single source of revenue .... commercials. If we had some form of "free money machine" we could crank up whenever the bank balance got a little tight, I'd love it.

Sorry if this sounds cynical, but the listeners are just a block of people to be presented to the door of an advertiser. If the clients don't want "those type of people" there isn't a lot you can do about it. You can offer a nice pool of clear, cold water to a horse, ..... but you can't force it to drink.

Regards to all,
Lee Smith

 

[thelastdj]

Re: "Oldies"

Lee,

Thank you for your thoughtful and honest post. I'm sorry things didn't work out, but I applaud you for trying. As a horse who sees the "pasture in the sky" getting a bit closer, I'll drink water to survive, no matter how nice the pool looks...but that's me...

I agree with you, and as I was posting while you were posting, I don't want to confuse the answers, but this is where I was trying to go:

Ad Agencies are supposed to be working for the client. A creative suggestion would be to for Colgate to introduce a toothpaste specifically aimed at Seniors. We all know it would be a re-package of an existing product, so no real R&D money would be required. If those Crest users think the new "Senior" product is better for them...trust me, they'll try it. The ad agency has to create an effective campaign (once again, they'd have to EARN their money, something unheard of in American commerce these days), and radio has to hold up it's end of the bargain by getting the message across. Free "introductory" size tubes to listeners with a name it and claim it contest, or something like that. When the ad agency dismisses you with generalizations, you must come back with a rational answer and a suggestion to keep the door open and a willingness to work with them towards a successful end for the client. THAT is what sales is all about.

On a National basis, if Colgate can "steal" even a minute percentage of the Crest business and then hold it with a follow-up campaign...Crest wins and they know it, because if you add and hold repeat business, it makes you that much stronger, if you weaken your competition in the process, it's icing on the cake

I refuse to accept the vague generalization responses aimed at dismissing the contention that selling to Boomers is not profitable. It's difficult, it requires imagination, creativity and extra effort, but it's not impossible.
Like you experienced Lee, NOTHING gets accomplished if you don't try. I'm sorry for any personal pain you might have experienced, but again, I commend you for your effort. Americans today, with the help of the media, take particular pleasure in the humiliation and failure of others. Without the sacrifice and failures of creative people, those same Americans wouldn't have the "secure" jobs they think so highly of. The sad reality is, there is no security...security is a state of mind. The fluctuation in business trends and the constant acquisition craze and resulting downsizing leaves only the highest in power "secure". The rest of us are on our own. Keep plugging away Lee, and without actually meeting you, it's a privelege to know you.

 

[LeeSmith]

Re: "Oldies"

Thanks for adding your perspective to the thread.

The thing missing here is the word "efficiency" when it comes to placing ad dollars on stations. They don't want to risk trying something really new when they are faced with reams of research which tells them that direction is a waste of time & money to go after us "ancient types." When I put on my business hat for a moment, I can't say I blame them. Sad, but true.

I'm not sure I can lay the blame for this at the feet of the Sales Dept just being lazy buggers who always want to take the path of least resistance to get a paycheck in their hands. Our people beat their brains out against the wall and slugged their guts out trying to make things work for three years.

After 36 months of steady losses, it was the end for me ... the "well just ran dry" and I didn't have the resources to carry on despite my continued high level of personal belief in the product & the audience.

Further, when you are talking your bank manager .. or potential investors ... about giving you their money, it had better be with the concept of paying them back ... not placing a bet on a horse with a steady string of losses behind it at the track.

Lee