• 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

Oldies listeners Unite

> Found this site to help in the fight to save the oldies
> format.
>
> www.savetheoldies.com
>
> Links to radio groups, ad agencies and even stations.

The problem is that neither agencies not stations determine the marketing target of the large ad accounts.
 
> > www.savetheoldies.com

> The problem is that neither agencies not stations determine
> the marketing target of the large ad accounts.
>
Sure they do. They develope the ad campaigns and they target the demo. They're using the idea that the 54 year old has selected their beer brand and can't sway him. However the 18-24 age group hasn't been branded yet.

I think it's an outdated model. IN this case the older demo, if nothing else is the last loyal radio listening audience. They're the ones being pushed away by the product they grew up with. My upper demo teens don't care about radio. Between Yahoo streaming, Ipods, X-box "live" and yes, still CD's, radio is barely part of their entertainment option

Too many stations trying to grab the same demo lessens the impact of the ad dollars. Which generation is larger? The boomers or the X or the current crop? And who has the disposable bucks?

The agencies still buy newspapers but they won't buy oldies radio? What a waste!
 
Re: False premise about ad campaigns

> > > www.savetheoldies.com
>
> > The problem is that neither agencies not stations
> determine
> > the marketing target of the large ad accounts.
> >
> Sure they do. They develope the ad campaigns and they target
> the demo. They're using the idea that the 54 year old has
> selected their beer brand and can't sway him. However the
> 18-24 age group hasn't been branded yet.

Nope, the brand owner selects the demo based on the decisions in product or service design, of marketing research and other factors. they instruct the ad agency to do a campaign to deliver a message to a specific target or multiple ones. The agency develops the campaign, and bus media that fit the cleint's target demos.

You don't really think that P&G allows an ad agency to determine who they are going to target, do you?

Of course, if the ad agency is a real partner all the way, they may participate in the brand research and even in the reserch on product design so they know the product.
>
> I think it's an outdated model. IN this case the older demo,
> if nothing else is the last loyal radio listening audience.

Actually, 55+ is where there is some TSL erosion because so few stations target 55+ for the above reasons.

Whup, whup, whup. Alarm going off. Radio reaches the same percentage of persons it did 10 years ago... there is no "last loyal audience" as te cume is even at pre-2000 levels in teens!

> They're the ones being pushed away by the product they grew
> up with.

Don't blame radio for the marketing focus of advertisers.

> My upper demo teens don't care about radio.

How many 55+ teens do you have? How old are you?

In any case, few people care about radio. They use it. In fact, over 94% do... same as 1965 when Arbitron started.

> Between
> Yahoo streaming, Ipods, X-box "live" and yes, still CD's,
> radio is barely part of their entertainment option

I can show you AQH listening indext to population in a really big market pre-satellite and pre-iPod and show you it is actually up since then.

At present, satellite can not even "make the book" in any market.


> Too many stations trying to grab the same demo lessens the
> impact of the ad dollars. Which generation is larger? The
> boomers or the X or the current crop? And who has the
> disposable bucks?

The ad target is pretty much 18-34 and 25-54 as main ones, and all the pieces in between, like Women 25-34.

Advertising is purchased based on cost per listener metrics, so it does not matter at all how many staitons there are, but, rather, what the price each station charges for every thousand listeners... there is no lessening of impact as advertisers by delivery, not the station itself.
>
> The agencies still buy newspapers but they won't buy oldies
> radio? What a waste!

Demos.
>
 
> My upper demo teens don't care about radio. Between
> Yahoo streaming, Ipods, X-box "live" and yes, still CD's,
> radio is barely part of their entertainment option
>
>

If that were true then why are rap/hip-hop and altrock stations seemingly doing well? Both are pretty much targeting an under 25 audience.
 
Re: False premise about ad campaigns

David, I always enjoy your posts.

I had a major Ford dealer client who always bought 12+. His theory was that a 14 year old will be 16 soon, and daddy might buy him his first car there.

On the other side, a 65 year old will come to his dealership for a Crown Vic or
Taurus. He felt his Ford store had something for everyone.

And he is right!!

Home Depot, Dick's Sporting Goods, Outback Steak House, WalMart...they want all demos coming to their business.

I think a 12+ (or 18-64) buy makes a lot of sense for many businesses.

Are advertisers and agencies targeting and thinking to small?

Just my thoughts.
 
Re: False premise about ad campaigns

Pretty Typical--

Someone tries to help move the mountain and the cynical "radio gods" say it can't be done. With that attitude, you are 100% right.

If you are a fan of oldies on the radio let's do something other than whine.

I'm emailing every ad agency on the list tonight. I'm sending the big companies a note thanking them for programming oldies and I'm going to mail some Safeway cash register receipts to Pepsi to show them that an old geezer like me buys their product.

Will it help? Who knows? But sitting with my thumb up my rear certainly won't.

(I feel better now)
 
Re: False premise about ad campaigns

> > I think it's an outdated model. IN this case the older
> demo,
> > if nothing else is the last loyal radio listening
> audience.
>
> Actually, 55+ is where there is some TSL erosion because so
> few stations target 55+ for the above reasons.
>
> Whup, whup, whup. Alarm going off. Radio reaches the same
> percentage of persons it did 10 years ago... there is no
> "last loyal audience" as te cume is even at pre-2000 levels
> in teens!

Maybe I'm being nitpicky here, but my analytical mind spotted a facially odd connection here. Maybe you can, and take your time with it--no rush, back up the same percentage ten years ago (1995) with numbers from 1995. The "pre-2000" phrase is kinda vague, and I have a suspicion that the 1995 (pre-consolidation) radio listenership percentages may in fact be higher than now, with the root cause the concentration of owners, programming, sales volume, etc.

Just sayin'. There's a lot of years' difference between 1995 and "pre-2000" (which could be 1999).

Otherwise, I agree with your post(s) on the subject.
 
> > My upper demo teens don't care about radio. Between
> > Yahoo streaming, Ipods, X-box "live" and yes, still CD's,
> > radio is barely part of their entertainment option
> >
> >
>
> If that were true then why are rap/hip-hop and altrock
> stations seemingly doing well? Both are pretty much
> targeting an under 25 audience.

Alternative stations have an average age in the high 20's. CHRs do very well with 18-24 females if well programmed. And hip hop stations have an average age from about 25 to 27, depending on the market. All these formats target 18-34 sales demos.
>
 
Re: False premise about ad campaigns

> Maybe I'm being nitpicky here, but my analytical mind
> spotted a facially odd connection here. Maybe you can, and
> take your time with it--no rush, back up the same percentage
> ten years ago (1995) with numbers from 1995. The "pre-2000"
> phrase is kinda vague, and I have a suspicion that the 1995
> (pre-consolidation) radio listenership percentages may in
> fact be higher than now, with the root cause the
> concentration of owners, programming, sales volume, etc.

Radio has cumed around 94% to 95% of markets since the 70s's... same in Canada where the ratings system is the same and uses the same techniques.
>
> Just sayin'. There's a lot of years' difference between
> 1995 and "pre-2000" (which could be 1999).

Electroincally, I can only go back to 1997. The LA total cume was 94.6% of the people in the market.

The TSL was higher, but users of radio, which is my point, has not changed for 40 years.
 
Re: False premise about ad campaigns

> David, I always enjoy your posts.
>
> I had a major Ford dealer client who always bought 12+. His
> theory was that a 14 year old will be 16 soon, and daddy
> might buy him his first car there.
>
> On the other side, a 65 year old will come to his dealership
> for a Crown Vic or
> Taurus. He felt his Ford store had something for everyone.
>
> And he is right!!

I think he was ingenuous. Too many screeching car ads get in the way of the image spot. Car dealers know the decision to visit a dealer is mostly made between thursday afternoon and the time on the weekend that the dealership is visited. So they go for the jugular with price and other offers in that period, as they know ech person maks such a move only every 3 to 5 years.
>
> Home Depot, Dick's Sporting Goods, Outback Steak House,
> WalMart...they want all demos coming to their business.

Actually, they don't in many cases. they want the demos that make the biggest purchases. Outback wants people who will consume alcoholic beveradges, and they know who they are.
>
> I think a 12+ (or 18-64) buy makes a lot of sense for many
> businesses.

It has been proven otherwise. Beer companies know that 20% of beer drinkers consume 80% of the beer. Guess where they advertise?
>
> Are advertisers and agencies targeting and thinking to
> small?

No, they are going for efficient delivery of people who will buy the most.
 
Re: False premise about ad campaigns

> Pretty Typical--
>
> Someone tries to help move the mountain and the cynical
> "radio gods" say it can't be done. With that attitude, you
> are 100% right.

The problem is that you are focusing on the wrong mountain. Ad agencies do not determine what demos will be appropriate for an advertiser... the advertiser and its marketing department does. Again, do you think P&G is going to go by what an ad agency suggests as a target, or by its own research that started before the product was even a prototype?
>
> If you are a fan of oldies on the radio let's do something
> other than whine.

None of what you suggest will have even the slightest impact as you are comitting the cardinal sin of sales... talking to the wrong person.
>
> I'm emailing every ad agency on the list tonight.

They will giggle, wondering why you think they control the clients'marketing departments.

> I'm
> sending the big companies a note thanking them for
> programming oldies

If yu tell them your age, they will probably hasten to change format.

> and I'm going to mail some Safeway cash
> register receipts to Pepsi to show them that an old geezer
> like me buys their product.

Pepsi is not dumb. they know 70 year olds buy sodas. They just buy about 6% of what a 23 year old male does.
>
> Will it help? Who knows? But sitting with my thumb up my
> rear certainly won't.

Keep you thumb inserted. Your idea is a big waste of time.
 
Re: False premise about ad campaigns

> > Maybe I'm being nitpicky here, but my analytical mind
> > spotted a facially odd connection here. Maybe you can,
> and
> > take your time with it--no rush, back up the same
> percentage
> > ten years ago (1995) with numbers from 1995. The
> "pre-2000"
> > phrase is kinda vague, and I have a suspicion that the
> 1995
> > (pre-consolidation) radio listenership percentages may in
> > fact be higher than now, with the root cause the
> > concentration of owners, programming, sales volume, etc.
>
> Radio has cumed around 94% to 95% of markets since the
> 70s's... same in Canada where the ratings system is the same
> and uses the same techniques.
> >
> > Just sayin'. There's a lot of years' difference between
> > 1995 and "pre-2000" (which could be 1999).
>
> Electroincally, I can only go back to 1997. The LA total
> cume was 94.6% of the people in the market.
>
> The TSL was higher, but users of radio, which is my point,
> has not changed for 40 years.
>

Works for me. No need to pound the books, I just wondered if there were some easy access numbers from '95 available. Appreciate it.
 
Re: Save The Oldies- Who's Involved

> Found this site to help in the fight to save the oldies
> format.
>
> www.savetheoldies.com
>
>HA HA. Take a look at the whois for the domain! The Administrative contact is MARTY THOMPSON...Yes, the same Marty With The Party who is now programming an Infinity Country station!!
 
> [The agencies still buy newspapers but they won't buy oldies
> radio? What a waste!]


GREAT observation. Radio's problems (and yes, it WAS a radio problem) started 25 years ago when today's 54+ group was 29+. Radio advertising couldn't compete with newspapers then, and they still can't today. It has nothing to do with age, buying habits, etc. But I guess those excuses sound good at the weekly radio advertising department sales meetings.
 
> > [The agencies still buy newspapers but they won't buy
> oldies
> > radio? What a waste!]
>
>
> GREAT observation. Radio's problems (and yes, it WAS a
> radio problem) started 25 years ago when today's 54+ group
> was 29+. Radio advertising couldn't compete with newspapers
> then, and they still can't today. It has nothing to do with
> age, buying habits, etc. But I guess those excuses sound
> good at the weekly radio advertising department sales
> meetings.

Radio and print work for different reasons. Yet print is declining fast measured as a share of ad spending, while radio is up.

Newspapers make a good deal of revenue on classifieds (although online threatens it) and cupons and inserts, things radio can not do. It also is very good for mass price item advertising.

Radio has always had a "problem" with print. Print has had a problem with TV for 60 years. Magazines have a problem with direct mail. And so on. This is commonly called "competiton."
>
 
> > > [The agencies still buy newspapers but they won't buy
> > oldies
> > > radio? What a waste!]
> >
> >
> > GREAT observation. Radio's problems (and yes, it WAS a
> > radio problem) started 25 years ago when today's 54+ group
>
> > was 29+. Radio advertising couldn't compete with
> newspapers
> > then, and they still can't today. It has nothing to do
> with
> > age, buying habits, etc. But I guess those excuses sound
> > good at the weekly radio advertising department sales
> > meetings.
>
> Radio and print work for different reasons. Yet print is
> declining fast measured as a share of ad spending, while
> radio is up.


And, newspapers are having difficulty attracting younger readers. The average age of newspaper readers is getting older -- fast.
 
> > > > [The agencies still buy newspapers but they won't buy
> > > oldies
> > > > radio? What a waste!]
> > >
> > >
> > > GREAT observation. Radio's problems (and yes, it WAS a
> > > radio problem) started 25 years ago when today's 54+
> group
> >
> > > was 29+. Radio advertising couldn't compete with
> > newspapers
> > > then, and they still can't today. It has nothing to do
> > with
> > > age, buying habits, etc. But I guess those excuses
> sound
> > > good at the weekly radio advertising department sales
> > > meetings.
> >
> > Radio and print work for different reasons. Yet print is
> > declining fast measured as a share of ad spending, while
> > radio is up.
>
>
> And, newspapers are having difficulty attracting younger
> readers. The average age of newspaper readers is getting
> older -- fast.

> Lets ban newspapers, only old geezers over 45 read them.....lol
>
 
>


[And, newspapers are having difficulty attracting younger
> readers. The average age of newspaper readers is getting
> older -- fast.]


So then, radio and newspapers DO have something in common.
 
> >
>
>
> [And, newspapers are having difficulty attracting younger
> > readers. The average age of newspaper readers is getting
> > older -- fast.]
>
>
> So then, radio and newspapers DO have something in common.


Some newspapers have made changes to try and attract younger readers.

For example, many free-circulation or shoppers are written in a "breezy" style and many stories with only three or four paragraphs.

Another problem facing newspapers is much of their content is available on the Internet at no cost.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom