Oldies on AM?

[1290wgli]

Re: How media is bought

> You really think that the people at P&G are idiots?

When it comes to radio ad buying, if that is where they are directing the agencies, yes.



> The US now has a service based economy. So most Americans,
> per your criteria, are pawns. I´d add an "r" as, at least,
> prawns are edible and deliciousl with lemon.

Yes. Most are just doing the bidding of others with little or no possibility to change the system. Fact of life, corporate America is America and the country ebbs and flows with its whims. The machine is too large.


> No indication in the PPM tests that they are leaving in
> significant numbers. The fact is, advertisers know that a
> big percentage of advertising is not heard, seen or read,
> and that is factored in.

Funny, I recall an article in one of the trades a few years back where one of the points was pondering that same question: "What's it like to be spot 3 in a 5 spot set". The author didn't even want to "open that can of worms". Wish I could remember, but it was either BE or Radio World.

> Actually, I have been wanting to retire for about 5 years,
> but am enjoying radio too much to stop.

Well, I have another 20 and would like it to still be there at the end.

> Radio is measured at the respondent level, not by household.
> TV is measured by household.

It's hard to figure how you come up with some of these numbers, so I was wondering how it was being spun. I figured it was not by sets in US households.


> Nearly half of those who could lsiten to us do.

But that number breaks down even further when you consider that your "marketable share" includes less people than the 12+ numbers.

> > Why doesn't it exist?
>
> Because, as I have said, advertisers do not put money
> against 55+ in electroinc media.

In that case, what's left for radio? You can't give me a clean bill of health for aradio when it does not cater to future listeners and ignores those with radio listening habits, while saturating one or two specific demos with 3 dozen rows of presets to "tune out" your clients' message.


>> Well, they were supposed to have the 4th Q 2004, then Jan
>> 2005, then by Christmas 2005, now by when?

> I don´t know who told you that.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-05/ns-arr052803.php

Here is Kenwood's line

"Kenwood plans to make a big splash at the CES show in January with its 2004 HD Radios and to be able to ship significant quantities of product that month. Kenwood also plans to introduce a home version in the first quarter of 2004."

I don't think Kenwood has the home receiver. I give them credit for the auto line, but who is promoting it? Getting stations on the air is important, getting consumers to under stand that "Digital Radio" does not mean the Phase Locked Loop radio they already own is another.

Two years later, the same song

http://www.billboardradiomonitor.co...display.jsp?schema=&vnu_content_id=1001390949

Quote: "In other words, HD radio missed the holiday buying season".

Here is one model promised for June 2005 (the cheapest home unit available)

http://www.ibiquity.com/press/pr/Radiosophy_041905.htm

But here in a blog from the 2006 CEA show:

"Radiosophy's radio is still a couple months away from release, and appeared only at iBiquity's booth".

From fybush.com 9/26/05
"HD Radio was the big topic on many attendees' minds, though with plenty of concern about what remains a **much slower than expected** rollout of receivers for the service. (Only Day Sequerra, which makes extremely sophisticated and pricey reference receivers, had tuners on the floor ready for shipping; Radiosophy was on hand to demonstrate its slick home tuner, but shipping of the unit remains delayed, likely past the holiday season that should have been a major rollout for HD Radio gear if the technology is going to catch on before it's completely eclipsed by satellite and other digital technologies.)"

And while these are just a few examples, the fact is that only Kenwood is agressive rolling out receivers. Yamaha has one for $1800 (home unit... very affordable) and the Boston Acoustics radio has arrived, but who is spending $500 for an AM FM Radio who doesn't hold a ham ticket or is an audiophile (and I use THAT term loosely for BA's table radios).

> No, the system has been in development since the early 90's.
> The codec was not even finalized until last year, and the
> design specs for radios and chips not releasted until
> November.

Project Acorn in 1989 actually. And that doesn't matter, in field devices are upgradeable

"Vice President of Kenwood USA Bob Law said the codec change has required only software changes in receivers, not modifications in hardware."

> They seem to. A comparable phenomenon can be seen among
> Hispanics of second generation who spek mostly English while
> in school... but when they marry or get job responsibility
> they use Spanish more and tend to become more Spanish
> speaking over time, and this is called "cultural reversion."
> The same happens with alternative media usage... as people
> fill their life with family and job, they use more easy to
> use media

Wifi cell internet will provide more than enough specific content to render radio useless. Why wait for some consultant to GIVE me the conent I crave when I can have it with me when I want it.. including traffic, sports, weather and news from any political angle I want.

P.S. As I write this, WDRC in Hartford just ran a liner at 1:45am touting their new "crisp, clean sound of HD Radio". Station has had HD on for 3 months, first mention I have heard, but no OTHER info to consumers who may want to know WHERE to buy, or what the hell it even is.

Since DRC is an oldies station, it may be time to try and find one, since the music I love will probably end up on one of the secondary streams soon (oh, wait, I live too far out of the service contour to probably decode any secondary channels).

 

[davideduardo]

Re: How media is bought

>
> > Radio is measured at the respondent level, not by
> household.
> > TV is measured by household.
>
> It's hard to figure how you come up with some of these
> numbers, so I was wondering how it was being spun. I
> figured it was not by sets in US households.

Actually, all the numbers I come up with are sourcable. You ar simply in denial about the way the media works, and don't understand that indivisual radio stations with formats that are unmarketable can not change this.
>
> > Nearly half of those who could lsiten to us do.
>
> But that number breaks down even further when you consider
> that your "marketable share" includes less people than the
> 12+ numbers.

Huh? Our weekly reach is about 70% of all 12+ Hispanics in the LA metro as a cluster. And this, by the way, is a group that uses 24 hours per person a week (Arbitron) as opposed to about 19 as the market average.

One of the stations has been #1 or #2 in 25-54 since 1995, in the biggest radio market in the US. It is pretty hard to dismiss a market leader like that.
>
> Wifi cell internet will provide more than enough specific
> content to render radio useless. Why wait for some
> consultant to GIVE me the conent I crave when I can have it
> with me when I want it.. including traffic, sports, weather
> and news from any political angle I want.

WiMax is needed to do this, and that takes greater bandwidth than currently available and takes a subscription fee. And someone has to pay for the content you want, and the infrastructure. Guess who will provide the content?
>
> P.S. As I write this, WDRC in Hartford just ran a liner at
> 1:45am touting their new "crisp, clean sound of HD Radio".
> Station has had HD on for 3 months, first mention I have
> heard, but no OTHER info to consumers who may want to know
> WHERE to buy, or what the hell it even is.

As I said, there has been plenty of hype for several years to get broadcasters interested. The design specs for consumer radios were not released till November, and it was only last month that Intel invested in iBiquity to give it capital to develop the low power chipsets it needs for this to work.
>
> Since DRC is an oldies station, it may be time to try and
> find one, since the music I love will probably end up on one
> of the secondary streams soon (oh, wait, I live too far out
> of the service contour to probably decode any secondary
> channels).

In LA, our HD channels are listenable as far as the useful in-home contour of each signal. We find on AM that the HD reaches farther than the analog signal in usable form.
>

 

[Eli Polonsky]

> If you want to see loyalty, check out the willingness of
> "oldies" music supporters to send money to PBS when they
> have their fund raisers.

However, those people are not the same people who listened to oldies on the radio.

Most PBS viewers don't listen to commercial radio at all. If they listen to radio, it's mostly to NPR or other non-comm public stations on FM. AM radio no longer exists for them unless they happen to be sports fans, or if they need to find a traffic report.

Because most PBS viewers don't listen to commercial radio, the occasional "oldies" fundraiser PBS TV specials have a huge "Oh, Wow" factor for them, because they haven't heard even the most common oldies for decades, perhaps not since listening to commercial radio in their youth (when the songs were new) before they "matured" to public radio only.

This audience will support their occasional "guilty pleasure" of nostalgically enjoying oldies when presented in a PBS context, but for the most part they will not listen to, or support, a commercial oldies station.

 

[1290wgli]

Re: How media is bought

> You
> are simply in denial about the way the media works, and don't
> understand that indivisual radio stations with formats that
> are unmarketable can not change this.

Then you are in denial about the fiscal health of radio in the future. If you think continuing down the current path is healthy, think again. The medication (HD technology for FM radio) to ensure continued viability is there and not being properly promoted by broadcasters who have everything to lose.


> Huh? Our weekly reach is about 70% of all 12+ Hispanics in
> the LA metro as a cluster. And this, by the way, is a group
> that uses 24 hours per person a week (Arbitron) as opposed
> to about 19 as the market average.

Who cares about 12+. Isn't it the specific demo that you care about. Why all of the sudden are you spinning 12+ numbers?

> WiMax is needed to do this, and that takes greater bandwidth
> than currently available and takes a subscription fee. And
> someone has to pay for the content you want, and the
> infrastructure. Guess who will provide the content?

Content can come from traditional sources, but it will also probably come from places you can't even imagine today (I can imagine Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL working in synergy with Cingular, Verizon etc. If you think traditional broadcasters are the ONLY people that are going to be at the content providers, that companies with deep pockets are not going to get involved.....)

As I write this, I see Motorola is starting. See link below.


> As I said, there has been plenty of hype for several years
> to get broadcasters interested. The design specs for
> consumer radios were not released till November, and it was
> only last month that Intel invested in iBiquity to give it
> capital to develop the low power chipsets it needs for this
> to work.

Let's see how LONG it takes to get these devices to market and how much longer it will take before broadcasters actually start pushing this gear.


>
> In LA, our HD channels are listenable as far as the useful
> in-home contour of each signal. We find on AM that the HD
> reaches farther than the analog signal in usable form.
> >
>

Not so with the secondary streams. The useful range of WNYC-FM's secondary audio stream was, during a Tomorrow Radio Project demo, Western Suffolk County on Long Island (at best). The analog (and main digital) channel extends at least another 20-25 miles east.

Found this today

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2006/tc20060113_897980.htm?campaign_id=search

If Apple comes thru with the plan to include HD Receivers in I-Pods, I would buy mine tomorrow. Also broadcasters are spending $200 million on advertising to get the word out. Looks like they're not taking your advice to wait until more stations are outfitted. The time is NOW to promote this tech for FM (as I said, we don't need to talk about AM since the tech does not have a killer app for that service.. and we don't need to start talking about how AM will be left behind again).

 

[davideduardo]

Re: How media is bought

> Then you are in denial about the fiscal health of radio in
> the future. If you think continuing down the current path
> is healthy, think again. The medication (HD technology for
> FM radio) to ensure continued viability is there and not
> being properly promoted by broadcasters who have everything
> to lose.

You are predicting a fast decline. I am predicting a slower one, with a change in content distribution method at some point. The vast majority of thepeople who know how to provide content that is compelling are still in radio. Radio will add new distribution channels. It will go through a metamorphosis, but it will be around a considerable amount of time.

> > Huh? Our weekly reach is about 70% of all 12+ Hispanics in
>
> > the LA metro as a cluster. And this, by the way, is a
> group
> > that uses 24 hours per person a week (Arbitron) as opposed
>
> > to about 19 as the market average.
>
> Who cares about 12+. Isn't it the specific demo that you
> care about. Why all of the sudden are you spinning 12+
> numbers?

Our share in 25-54 is 14.4. We have the #1, #2 and #6 stations in this demo, general market. No other group has more top 10 stations, despite both Clear and Infinity having more FMs than we do.
>

> Content can come from traditional sources, but it will also
> probably come from places you can't even imagine today (I
> can imagine Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL working in synergy
> with Cingular, Verizon etc. If you think traditional
> broadcasters are the ONLY people that are going to be at the
> content providers, that companies with deep pockets are not
> going to get involved.....)

This is possible, but it is unlikely that any of these will be creating anywhere near the amount of compelling content that radio does. As an example, look at the economics... there are multiple morning talents in LA making 7-figure salaries. All radio has to do is add distribution. The cost of hiring them and putting them on alternate methods of distribution on a market to market basis favors radio adding distribution, not Yahoo reinventing the wheel.

>
> As I write this, I see Motorola is starting. See link
> below.

And they are associating with local radio stations, with whom they have been talking for a long time. The service is by subscription. It costs money. So far, only a tiny number of people have indicated they will spend for this now or int he immediate future. Radio has the advantage of being free to the consumer, and supported by ads. This model will be expanded to new distribution methods.
>
> Let's see how LONG it takes to get these devices to market
> and how much longer it will take before broadcasters
> actually start pushing this gear.

Broadcasters and iBiquity are rolling this out by market size. NY now has a plan for the second FM digital channels, and will begin promoting by ramping up over this year as the Chinese equipment starts getting into channels. As I said, there is no attractive receiver yet, since the design specs were only released last Novemeber.

> > In LA, our HD channels are listenable as far as the useful
> > in-home contour of each signal. We find on AM that the HD
> > reaches farther than the analog signal in usable form.
> > >
> >
>
> Not so with the secondary streams. The useful range of
> WNYC-FM's secondary audio stream was, during a Tomorrow
> Radio Project demo, Western Suffolk County on Long Island
> (at best). The analog (and main digital) channel extends at
> least another 20-25 miles east.

The usable signal of WNYC FM falls between Nassau and Queens, which is the 70 dbu. The 60 gets just short of Islip. Extensive studies of ratings diaries shows that about 80% of quarter hours fall in the 70 dbu and over 90% fall in the 64 dbu curve (6 db down from the 70).

In the usable signal areas, the HD signal on a variety of available radios, extends beyond the 60. In LA, we have gotten usable ground level reception of HD beyond the 64 contour.
>
> If Apple comes thru with the plan to include HD Receivers in
> I-Pods, I would buy mine tomorrow. Also broadcasters are
> spending $200 million on advertising to get the word out.
> Looks like they're not taking your advice to wait until more
> stations are outfitted.

They are spending it as the radios roll out. Í was on the initial committee for this, so I kinda' know how it works.

> The time is NOW to promote this
> tech for FM (as I said, we don't need to talk about AM since
> the tech does not have a killer app for that service.. and
> we don't need to start talking about how AM will be left
> behind again).

There are no final design receivers in the stores. None.
>

 

[1290wgli]

Re: How media is bought

> You are predicting a fast decline. I am predicting a slower
> one, with a change in content distribution method at some
> point.

It all depends on what you feel is fast or slow. Is 10-15 years fast or slow to see sweeping changes in content delivery


> This is possible, but it is unlikely that any of these will
> be creating anywhere near the amount of compelling content
> that radio does.

Compelling content in radio is mostly talk today (Hannity, Rush etc) or morning shows on music stations (which are usually more talk than music). Music itself, still the lifeblood of FM, is no longer compelling with WHAT is being presented and HOW it is being presented.

> The cost
> of hiring them and putting them on alternate methods of
> distribution on a market to market basis favors radio adding
> distribution, not Yahoo reinventing the wheel.

That's why these secondary streams are the killer app. NY radio can finally serve audiences that are currently being ignored, thus keeping more people in the fold.


> And they are associating with local radio stations, with
> whom they have been talking for a long time. The service is
> by subscription. It costs money. So far, only a tiny number
> of people have indicated they will spend for this now or int
> he immediate future.

Sounds like people talking about Cable TV in the 1970's... and we know nobody pays for TV.

> Radio has the advantage of being free
> to the consumer, and supported by ads. This model will be
> expanded to new distribution methods.

And people will pay for other content that is not commercial free.


> Broadcasters and iBiquity are rolling this out by market
> size. NY now has a plan for the second FM digital channels,
> and will begin promoting by ramping up over this year as the
> Chinese equipment starts getting into channels. As I said,
> there is no attractive receiver yet, since the design specs
> were only released last Novemeber.

There is no AFFORDABLE receiver yet. But attractive is also an applicable term, since nobody is attracted to a $500 device that is JUST a radio.

> The usable signal of WNYC FM falls between Nassau and
> Queens, which is the 70 dbu. The 60 gets just short of
> Islip. Extensive studies of ratings diaries shows that about
> 80% of quarter hours fall in the 70 dbu and over 90% fall in
> the 64 dbu curve (6 db down from the 70).
>
> In the usable signal areas, the HD signal on a variety of
> available radios, extends beyond the 60. In LA, we have
> gotten usable ground level reception of HD beyond the 64
> contour.

I am not talking about the main channel, I am talking about the secondary service. When Arb breaks out the NY book for Long Island, a sizeable amount of listeners rely on NYC service and most of the population sees NYC service on equal footing as locals depending on diary placement (CHR WHTZ often beats local CHR WBLI... WLTW had one of its best book on LI ever, second overall 12+... partly thanks to Christmas music, which also helped local WALK to it's usual position at #1).

Given that, a majority of listeners will fall within the 60 dbu contour of a given station, in this case WNYC-FM (which is mid-Nassau County give or take geography), and, from what I can remember the secondary service extends towards the 50 dbu contour (it falls short, the signal suffers, like all NYC signals over the Plainview Ridge but will probably be good enough for reasonable recovery by receivers in some or most of this area).

Ironically, the WNYC FM coverage map on their website is a better representation of where the secondary signals run out and NOT the main as indicated (the main and HD signals run far beyond the boarders expressed)

http://www.wnyc.org/underwrite/map_coverage.html

Secondary radio service will not be just a bonus for some, it will be WHAT they are buying the equipment for.

> >
> > If Apple comes thru with the plan to include HD Receivers
> in
> > I-Pods, I would buy mine tomorrow. Also broadcasters are
> > spending $200 million on advertising to get the word out.
>
> > Looks like they're not taking your advice to wait until
> more
> > stations are outfitted.
>
> They are spending it as the radios roll out.

Who is spending what?

 

[radioears]

Re: Radio Joke

> > .
> > >
> > > In the US, which is the subject of this discussion,
> there
> > > are very few. Most are in small markets, or doing a
> highly
> > > niche format like gospel or ethnic where there is no
> > > alternative for a well defined group or lifestyle.
> >
> > Wrong. There are plenty of AM stations playing music to
> the
> > same older demos that Oldies appeals to.
>
> In larger markets... and I mean the top 100 or 150 markets,
> the AM music stations are, as I said, either things like
> gospel or ethnic. The ones doing standards or some variant
> are usually daytimers, suburban or have some other
> impediment that does not allow them to compete with the
> major stations for top dollar revenue, so they live of low
> rate spots ona frugal operation. An example would be WHLI
> 1100... low, low billing, but they probably make a tiny
> amount as it is a tag-algon to a big cluster.
>
> > Many of them are
> > doing fine.
>
> Most are not, and are barely hanging on. If a cluster of big
> stations has a dog AM, they can run the station off a
> computer in a closet, add alittle business and be OK. As
> long as they did not pay much for it, it makes no sense to
> get rid of, either.
>
> > Again....I'm not saying an AM station in NYC is
> > going to be a top 10 biller....but it will produce more
> > revenue than many are presently. Canand has a tremendous
> > amount of financially successful AM stations programmibng
> > many varied mainstream music formats.
>
> Name a few, please, that are not in unrated,
> nontransactional markets.
>
> In any case, the subject was converting 1130, 710, 1330 or
> 1560 to oldies. All four of these stations are far better
> off as they are now than were they oldies. Three of them are
> not programmed for direct profits, but as enhancements for
> brands and can be considered to be run for the promotional
> value that accrues to the brand. The other is a major
> biller, around $20 million, and would not change to AM
> music.
>
> > > 45-54 is well served. 55+ has a sales problem, not a
> > > programming problem. You could not sell anything on a
> big
> > AM
> > > targeting 55+ with music in NY.
> >
> > There is no Oldies station going after the 45+
> demo....that
> > is what we call a "wide-open format hole". CBS-FM had a
> 4-5
> > share of this demo and...as I stated before but you ignore
>
> > to try and make your point...they were billing about
> $30mil
> > per year. A good percentage of that would still be
> > available to a viable AM station that took the format and
> > many of the listeners.
>
> Money is not available to a format. It is available based on
> audience delivery, especially in New York. If a station gets
> a 1 share, they bill about 1% of the commercial station
> revenue in NY... around $11 million.
>
> And the point is that CBS-FM was on a very severe downtrend,
> as the audience was too old to sell. Nobody, on AM, FM or CB
> radio can sell in a demo that is ageing out of the sales
> demos. In other words, the 45-54 share for oldies is about
> 5% or more less each year. So in a couple of years, the
> share potential is even lower.
>
> > > Many if not most go to AM for talk. But once you have
> > tried
> > > music on FM, most will not put up with it, even if it is
>
> > > very, very good.
> >
> > Really? See my observation two statements above.
>
> What obvservation? I do not see any well billing AM music
> formats outside the examples I gave.
> >
> > > Most would go broke. There is no revenue in a big market
>
> > for
> > > a music AM programmed for general market 55+. In smaller
>
> > > markets, like those under the top 100 or 150, there is
> > less
> > > transactional business and local advertisers can be
> > > confvinced to try an older skewing station... sometimes
> > very
> > > successfully.
> >
> > You are simply wrong. There is $30 mil that was being
> sold
> > on CBS-FM with that demo.
>
> There was $30 million for am over-3 share, about $11 million
> a share. There is no "oldies money" anywhere. And any
> station that got a lower share would get a proportionally
> lower share of revenue. And if they audience was over 55, as
> most is now, especially with AM, the revenue would be worse.
>
> > >
> > > The previously posted list included stations firmly
> > commited
> > > to thier formats...
> > >
> > > WOR... huge biller
> > > ESPN... part of the disney marketing plan.
> > > 1560... part of the disney marketing plan.
> > > 1120... key to the Bloomberg presence in the financial
> > > capital of the USA.
>
> > One thing you have to learn my friend...money talks and if
>
> > the powers that be think they can do better going in
> another
> > ditrection they will.
>
> Disney has specifically excluded ESPN and Radio Disney from
> the bids for the radio group, because the stations are part
> of a billion dollar brand. Both Eisner and Iger specifically
> stated how significant the radio branding was to the Disney
> and ESPN marks.
>
> And Bloomberg must have the station as part of his service
> and brand enhancement for the financial community in NY.
>
> And WOR is billin $20 million.
>
> An AM will always get shorter TSL, so even if the did get
> some people, the shares would be low. Ans share determines
> revenue, as long as there is some under-55 listening.
>
> > But this is all conjecture at this
> > point....with the latest ratings....we may very well yet
> see
> > CBS-FM return to it's Oldies format. They have lost
> overall
> > ratings and revenue from what they projected.
>
> Actually, they were way up in 25-54, compared to the old
> format. And the spread in 35-54 is much better balanced.
> >
> > I know you don't like the Oldies format and AM radio at
> > all....but you use those thoughts to try and rationalize
> > something that you simply can't.
>
> Funny, just 1 hour and 20 minutes ago, I launced an oldies
> network including 4 of the top 10 markets in the USA, and 2
> more in the top 15. I do not see how you can say I do not
> like oldies. I love oldies formats, but they have to be done
> for a new demo. Oldies is not synonomous with 60s songs
> alone.
>
> > Try running a radio
> > station and then see if you have the same opinions.
>
> I have owned a group of 12 operating stations. I have been
> general manager at multiple top 20 market stations, and even
> been a group COO overseeing about 20 stations.
>
> I have beent here and done that.
>
> > You
> > must walk a mile in our shoes. And me? Yes, i own radio
> > stations and have for years.
>
> Then you should be able to point out easily the profitable,
> top 100 or top 150 market AM music stations that are outside
> my exception list.

I think advertisers are beginning to realize the error of their ways. I only hope it isn't too late. There was an article in a major newspaper last week that indicated that the precious "market research" that drives all, is now proving that the buying habits of 55+ are much different than those of past generations (btw, this is the same market research that says I only like to hear the same 50 oldies over and over and over again). That 25-54 mantra that has been drummed into the heads of marketing students may no longer be entirely valid. Unfortunately, it takes a long time for old dogs to understand new tricks and for big business to adjust to new concepts. The other fallacy that most seem to miss is that oldies don't just appeal to one demographic. It's one of the most universal formats there is and appeals to many of the "boomer kids" as well. Why would there be no less than a dozen commercials on TV today featuring "oldies" prominently in their advertising for products that target the younger key demographic? I only hope the ad execs and agencies stop basing their strategies on what real people want, not what some market research, skewed by assumptions, tells them. If not, the demise of oldies radio will continue to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>