Oldies, Revenue and Advertisers

[thelastdj]

I am in the 55+ crowd. I grew up listening to SUPERB stations, great personalities and lots of great music. During my 20's and 30's I was sidetracked by a little thing called LIFE...career, raising kids etc. By the time I turned forty, radio had changed and evolved but my thinking hadn't. Like so many people who post here, I opined and moped about the crappy playlists, lethargic hosts and everything else that was wrong. The reality is simple: the great oldies radio that I once knew is gone forever and will NEVER return. I've adjusted to that.

I didn't stop listening to music as I got older, my musical tastes expanded and radio exposed me to music I might not had known about, which subliminally was why I enjoyed "oldies" radio so much. Of course, I didn't give radio credit for that. My bad. The launch of MTV, which had that visual advantage, would often play videos that I truly loved, but the records didn't sell and radio didn't play all of them. Remember "Jukebox" by the Flirts? Great little song and cute video of the record store in the Village.

By the 90's, I was forced to stop listening altogether. I could no longer relate to the music, couldn't hear or understand most of the lyrics and found a lot of them I could understand to either be offensive or painfully depressing.
I've read other posts recently that suggest Boomers have evolved... well let me assure you Roy Orbison, Del Shannon and Dion will never be replaced in my heart by Notorious B.I.G., the Killers or 311. Not gonna happen...

Seeking refuge from the unlistenable, I quickly discovered there truly was no "Oldies" anymore. By then, radio was in the throws of the "throw the same 50 songs at them because we've been told that's all they want" mentality no matter what the genre of music you were interested in. And we all know how excited the listeners were with that approach.

I left radio and stopped listening. I became of the "Ipod" mentality before it was even invented. I left radio because the programming was repetitive, insipid and passionless. I am still attracted to the talent of contemporary artists I am not familiar with, but I discover them on Internet radio, or referrals from friends.

As I read these posts, it's apparent to me that the MAJORITY of listeners are just as frustrated as me, but station owners and management care only about the revenue and just barely about the product and the quality of presentation.

I may be old fashioned, but I think they're connected at the hip. Put on a good show and people will listen...plain and simple. Put out the same as everyone else to be "competitive" and offer no unique reason why listeners should tune in, like more talented hosts, and a well thought out, FOCUSED, playlist, then you shouldn't wonder why more and more people are looking for alternatives.

The recent post comment that Boomers have left radio is pretty accurate, and most of us have left for the same reason.... the programming sucks... We're a bit older, but we're not drooling yet... do you think with a little research and good old hard work you could build a better playlist? If and when ANY station actually puts forth the effort and does that, they will reap the rewards.

Will it be easy? NO. Can advertisers be sold? Not without hard work, creativity, and persistence. I don't know if the Management and Sales staffs are ready to actually earn their paychecks however, it's so much easier selling spots to the same demographic everyone else in the world is chasing. Has anyone thought about the fact that a high percentage of these kids are making $8 an hour and can only afford so much of this junk? Boomers are supposed to be a bad sell due to "loyalty" issues. Boomers look for bargains too. They need to, because they're kids can't find jobs and are moving back home by the droves. Boomers can be swayed too, if you have the TALENT and creative approach to reach them.

I won't piss and whine about the old days, if the "kids" in charge will roll up their sleeves, use the talent they supposedly have, and create the WIN WIN situation everyone wants.... a profitable station with loyal listeners...
I'm not describing a dream here...it used to happen all the time, every year.

Lord knows having the gift of a great voice is NOT a guarantee to success. You need help everywhere, from getting discovered to proper marketing, right looks and a lot of luck. Radio is the same. You can't expect to be successful because you have a station. You must create an identity. Why should I listen to you and not just punch the buttons... If you accomplish that, like it's been done countless times before in the history of radio...you will attract legions of loyal listeners. That makes selling the ads easier and everybody wins.

Is there a station out there with the balls, determination, management team and support talent to attack the boomer market? I don't think so. If there was, we wouldn't be beating this subject to death. Why would anyone in their right mind not believe Boomers wouldn't listen if you offered them a good product? You don't have to teach them about the benefits of radio, they grew up with it.
If the programming was equal or better, do you think they'd buy satellite radio
when the medium they grew up with is still free? Of course not.

Are the Boomers worth going after? Why not, they control the wealth in this country and will for another 10-20 years or so. They're not the "worker bees" anymore, but they have more casual income than the poor kids everyone is trying to sell to. Oh yeah, I forgot, to sell to the Boomers we'd have to actually make and effort and work hard...

This is my first and last post on the subject. If there's a station out there up to the challenge, I pray I'm wrong and will be the first to admit it. But my listening means nothing, however, if you do it right, the countless millions of frustrated "oldies" out there should help... A LOT...

Happy New Year

 

[LeeSmith]

Hi Last:

See my post in the thread below. I was typing it at the same time you were posting your note.

Regards,
Lee

 

[thelastdj]

Lee,

I've responded to your last post

Thanks

 

[AnotherBigFan]

> I am in the 55+ crowd. I grew up listening to SUPERB
> stations, great personalities and lots of great music.
> During my 20's and 30's I was sidetracked by a little thing
> called LIFE...career, raising kids etc. By the time I
> turned forty, radio had changed and evolved but my thinking
> hadn't. Like so many people who post here, I opined and
> moped about the crappy playlists, lethargic hosts and
> everything else that was wrong. The reality is simple: the
> great oldies radio that I once knew is gone forever and will
> NEVER return. I've adjusted to that.
>
> I didn't stop listening to music as I got older, my musical
> tastes expanded and radio exposed me to music I might not
> had known about, which subliminally was why I enjoyed
> "oldies" radio so much. Of course, I didn't give radio
> credit for that. My bad. The launch of MTV, which had that
> visual advantage, would often play videos that I truly
> loved, but the records didn't sell and radio didn't play all
> of them. Remember "Jukebox" by the Flirts? Great little
> song and cute video of the record store in the Village.
>
> By the 90's, I was forced to stop listening altogether. I
> could no longer relate to the music, couldn't hear or
> understand most of the lyrics and found a lot of them I
> could understand to either be offensive or painfully
> depressing.
> I've read other posts recently that suggest Boomers have
> evolved... well let me assure you Roy Orbison, Del Shannon
> and Dion will never be replaced in my heart by Notorious
> B.I.G., the Killers or 311. Not gonna happen...
>
> Seeking refuge from the unlistenable, I quickly discovered
> there truly was no "Oldies" anymore. By then, radio was in
> the throws of the "throw the same 50 songs at them because
> we've been told that's all they want" mentality no matter
> what the genre of music you were interested in. And we all
> know how excited the listeners were with that approach.
>
> I left radio and stopped listening. I became of the "Ipod"
> mentality before it was even invented. I left radio because
> the programming was repetitive, insipid and passionless. I
> am still attracted to the talent of contemporary artists I
> am not familiar with, but I discover them on Internet radio,
> or referrals from friends.
>
> As I read these posts, it's apparent to me that the MAJORITY
> of listeners are just as frustrated as me, but station
> owners and management care only about the revenue and just
> barely about the product and the quality of presentation.
>
> I may be old fashioned, but I think they're connected at the
> hip. Put on a good show and people will listen...plain and
> simple. Put out the same as everyone else to be
> "competitive" and offer no unique reason why listeners
> should tune in, like more talented hosts, and a well thought
> out, FOCUSED, playlist, then you shouldn't wonder why more
> and more people are looking for alternatives.
>
> The recent post comment that Boomers have left radio is
> pretty accurate, and most of us have left for the same
> reason.... the programming sucks... We're a bit older, but
> we're not drooling yet... do you think with a little
> research and good old hard work you could build a better
> playlist? If and when ANY station actually puts forth the
> effort and does that, they will reap the rewards.
>
> Will it be easy? NO. Can advertisers be sold? Not without
> hard work, creativity, and persistence. I don't know if the
> Management and Sales staffs are ready to actually earn their
> paychecks however, it's so much easier selling spots to the
> same demographic everyone else in the world is chasing. Has
> anyone thought about the fact that a high percentage of
> these kids are making $8 an hour and can only afford so much
> of this junk? Boomers are supposed to be a bad sell due to
> "loyalty" issues. Boomers look for bargains too. They need
> to, because they're kids can't find jobs and are moving back
> home by the droves. Boomers can be swayed too, if you have
> the TALENT and creative approach to reach them.
>
> I won't piss and whine about the old days, if the "kids" in
> charge will roll up their sleeves, use the talent they
> supposedly have, and create the WIN WIN situation everyone
> wants.... a profitable station with loyal listeners...
> I'm not describing a dream here...it used to happen all the
> time, every year.
>
> Lord knows having the gift of a great voice is NOT a
> guarantee to success. You need help everywhere, from
> getting discovered to proper marketing, right looks and a
> lot of luck. Radio is the same. You can't expect to be
> successful because you have a station. You must create an
> identity. Why should I listen to you and not just punch the
> buttons... If you accomplish that, like it's been done
> countless times before in the history of radio...you will
> attract legions of loyal listeners. That makes selling the
> ads easier and everybody wins.
>
> Is there a station out there with the balls, determination,
> management team and support talent to attack the boomer
> market? I don't think so. If there was, we wouldn't be
> beating this subject to death. Why would anyone in their
> right mind not believe Boomers wouldn't listen if you
> offered them a good product? You don't have to teach them
> about the benefits of radio, they grew up with it.
> If the programming was equal or better, do you think they'd
> buy satellite radio
> when the medium they grew up with is still free? Of course
> not.
>
> Are the Boomers worth going after? Why not, they control
> the wealth in this country and will for another 10-20 years
> or so. They're not the "worker bees" anymore, but they have
> more casual income than the poor kids everyone is trying to
> sell to. Oh yeah, I forgot, to sell to the Boomers we'd
> have to actually make and effort and work hard...
>
> This is my first and last post on the subject. If there's a
> station out there up to the challenge, I pray I'm wrong and
> will be the first to admit it. But my listening means
> nothing, however, if you do it right, the countless millions
> of frustrated "oldies" out there should help... A LOT...
>
> Happy New Year
>

Excellent post. Although my age makes me a "late Boomer", I resonate completely with what you're saying. I enjoy a variety of music styles, but the music I grew up on (70's) will never get old to me, as long as it's done right (i.e. don't feed me the same 50 songs over and over, and yes - personality definitely counts).

I also enjoy late 50's and 60's hits, even though I didn't "grow up with" it!

As you mentioned in the 90's, the music became unlistenable to me. And I was in my 30's then. By this time I'd been listening to oldies for quite a while, although during the 80's I listened to currents, too. (BTW you wouldn't believe the number of people I know in their 20s/early 30s today who detest current music, calling it garbage, and embrace either oldies or classic rock. I digress.) This to say, I was in the "desired" demo during my mid thirties, but I didn't listen to what the advertisers assumed I did. If I were such an oddball, I wouldn't mention this. But among peers, I wasn't considered so odd - many, many my age listened either to oldies or classic rock.

As a 40-something, I'm in the market for lots of stuff advertisers are selling. I'll want a new car within the next couple years. I'll be buying furniture, music, electronics, movies, stuff to eat, all kinds of stuff I hear ads for. Maybe even a new house. So who wants my money? Apparently not the "suits" that sell radio ads. BTW I probably spend more hours listening to the radio than most people ten, twenty years younger than me.

 

[asap]

> Lee,
>
> I've responded to your last post
>
> Thanks
>
Great post, and I agree with your opinions on music variety and losing interest
in more recent music.

As PD of a 60s/70s station in a Top 50 market I can explain the problem some radio formats face, "we have to program to the Arbitron ratings".

In larger markets the Aribtron ratings control, to a degree, our incomes.

Programming to passionate "oldies listeners", and programming to Arbitron
"diary keepers" are two different things.

The "typical" person who agrees to keep an Arbitron diary is:

a) reachable by phone(telemarketers). Do you take unsolicited calls? Are you on the "do not call list"?

b) will, for the whopping total of $2, keep a seven day diary of all their radio listening. (yea, that's gonna be real accurate)

Many intelligent, educated, busy people, just don't have the time or the inclination to participate in the Arbitron process.

This leaves the homemaker, retiree, unemployed, or typical K-Mart shopping coupon clipper, the prime target for Arbitron. Not that there's anything wrong with the above, but it's not a full cross section of our entire society.

This is why radio has to program to a fairly low common denominator. Keeping
the music comfortable and familiar to the people who are most willing to keep a diary.

In the Oldies format, there's only about 300-400 songs that fit that comfortable and familiar description. And, it's basically been the same songs for the past 20 years.

How do we know what these 300-400 songs are? Auditorium music testing.
Who participates in these tests? People you can reach by phone and will agree to come take the test. The same people who Arbitron can reach by phone and agree to keep a diary!!!

Do you see the vicious circle?

The solution? Answer your phone, and when Arbitron calls, agree to keep the
diary!!!

Would you carry a pager style People Meter? That's coming, and will help accuracy.

Internet diary keeping would be great. Busy people might agree to that.

In the meantime, it's play it safe. It's what wins (in Arbitron)

That's my (probably too long) story on who radio must program to, to be successful.

And, as a progammer and Oldies music lover, I don't like it any more than you do.

Let's hope a better system of Ratings comes along that better represents all of
the radio listening public!

 

[thelastdj]

Let's see...

Arbriton
Ad Agencies
Conglomerate Owners
Cutting costs (which normally means staff)
Passionless presentation
Repetitive Programming
Boring or Blowhard Talk
Hosts eating on the air
Literal STREAMS of commercials

I think we have the makings of a nice "top 10 reasons why people no longer listen to radio"

From what I can tell, radio is now Muzak with commercials. It's there, but it's not there. It's in the background out of habit, but there's really no reason to pay any particular attention. The positives remain traffic, weather and news.

When I was a kid, I revered radio. I grew into the desired demographic, but never had enough money to buy what I wanted. Today, everyone's trying to sell to the kids making $8 an hour on the days they show up for work. Working "professionals" don't have the time nor the inclination to listen unless it's at work or in the car to and from...and a whole lot of them have CD players and simply play what they enjoy.

As I get older, I accept my age. I don't want to go back because I know I can't go back. But music allows me to visit that time and space every now and again. It's just so hard to accept that the generation of people responsible for contributing to the evolution of what we call "Rock and Roll" can be so completely and utterly ignored. How much money have we spent on music and concerts in our lifetimes? And we're not dead yet! Our age group controls the wealth in the country and will for at least another decade or so, and yet no one thinks we're a worthy audience. I may be getting old...but that sure doesn't make any sense to me. Thanks for the response.

 

[asap]

> Let's see...
>
> Arbriton
> Ad Agencies
> Conglomerate Owners
> Cutting costs (which normally means staff)
> Passionless presentation
> Repetitive Programming
> Boring or Blowhard Talk
> Hosts eating on the air
> Literal STREAMS of commercials

What town are you in? Is there an Oldies station? What would make it better?
How would you build one from scratch?

Local, "live", relatable DJs with brief, interesting content?
Credible news updates every hour?
Reliable traffic information?
Fun, specialty programming?

My station does all those things. But, as in my previous reply, we do it while
playing the 375 safest, most familiar songs. It's the only chance we have to win with the current "ratings" system.

Analogy: If your running a TV station with older syndicated series, what
progams do you want to show, "Seinfeld" or "Yes, Dear".
"Beverly Hillbillies" or "My Mother The Car"?

Got to play the hits.

 

[peppertree]

Re: Oldies, Revenue and Advertisers: One Error Here

One error in your post. I commented about it on CBS-FM last year.

It is commercials with some Muzak. In other words, it is mainly advertising with an occasional break for music. It has become pretty bad. Beyond my tollerance.

> From what I can tell, radio is now Muzak with commercials.
> It's there, but it's not there. It's in the background out
> of habit, but there's really no reason to pay any particular
> attention. The positives remain traffic, weather and news.
> <P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[peppertree]

But not the most popular single episode again and again. That is what oldies radio is now.


> Analogy: If your running a TV station with older syndicated
> series, what
> progams do you want to show, "Seinfeld" or "Yes, Dear".
> "Beverly Hillbillies" or "My Mother The Car"?
>
> Got to play the hits.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[davideduardo]

> Let's see...
>
> Arbriton

Been around since 1965. What about them?

> Ad Agencies

Been around for 100 years. So?

> Conglomerate Owners

No radio company could be called a conglomerate. A conglomerate is something like GE that makes jet engines, finances businesses, has the red Robin restaurants, makes light bulbs, makes applainces, owns NBC and telemundo, etc. A conglomerate is in many unsimilar industries, not like Clear Channel which is just in one.

> Cutting costs (which normally means staff)

Since the word ¨profit¨ was invented, business people have tried to squeeze every dime. Heck, Ebeneezer Schrooge´s story is about putting profits first at Christmas time.

> Passionless presentation

Some formats, believe it or not, are appealing to lsiteners only if the jocks shut up or if there are no jocks.

> Repetitive Programming

Most people like to hear hits, not unknown songs. They like to hear thier favorite songs, not crap.

> Boring or Blowhard Talk

Then why has talk become th most popular format in radio in the last 15 years? You don´t like it, so everyone else shouldn't also?

> Hosts eating on the air

That is an improvement. I used to catch them screwing while on the air in the 60's and 70's... Thinking it over, maybe it is not an improvement.

(In my first shift, I used to come with a bage of Royal castle sixteen cent burgers and 5 coups of coffee, and put them on the top of the transmitter. I scarfed them down over the next 16 hours at $1.15 an hour... lordy, how great radio was back then!!!!)

> Literal STREAMS of commercials

About half what stations ran in the 50's and 60's when the FCC had to set asside license renewal when stations went over 18 minutes an hour to bring the loads down.
>
> I think we have the makings of a nice "top 10 reasons why
> people no longer listen to radio"

If your premise or statement were true, perhaps. But since it isn't, there is no point except to satisfy your agenda.

In 1965, 95% of Americans listened to raido weekly. Guess what... after CDs, iPods, Satellite, VHS, DVD, Video games, Cable TV, HDTV, the web, downloads, cassettes, 8-Tracks, walkman players, etc., etc, 94% of Americans listen to radio every week.

Gee, I guess people do listen to the radio. I guess your premise is wrong.
>
> From what I can tell, radio is now Muzak with commercials.
> It's there, but it's not there. It's in the background out
> of habit, but there's really no reason to pay any particular
> attention. The positives remain traffic, weather and news.

Yet many listeners want non of that. Some listeners want their favorites of the 70's 8's 90's and Today with no jocks, no news, no traffic, no garbage except music and the commercials they know are the price of admission.

Some listeners want all talk. Some want sports. Some want jocks and morning shows. Since the average market has 3 times the viable stations they had in 1960, there are all kinds of alternatives.
>
> When I was a kid, I revered radio. I grew into the desired
> demographic, but never had enough money to buy what I
> wanted.

Translation: "I got older." So what?

> Today, everyone's trying to sell to the kids making
> $8 an hour on the days they show up for work. Working
> "professionals" don't have the time nor the inclination to
> listen unless it's at work or in the car to and from...and a
> whole lot of them have CD players and simply play what they
> enjoy.

Yet 94% of 18-54's also listen to radio. And, surprise!!!!!! In 1950, before the TV freeze was lifted, the average American listened to just over 20 hours of radio a week. Today, after all the changes in media, they listen 19 hours a week.

OK, in a few markets, the listening is lower, often because the markets are small and have few offerings. But in the larger markets, listeing is essentially the same as it was 55 years ago.
>
> As I get older, I accept my age.

This has exactly what to do with radio. we all mature and age. It is part of being a **** sapiens.

> I don't want to go back
> because I know I can't go back.

That's brilliant. have you been reading Kant or Thoreau or Voltaire? How inspiring.

> But music allows me to
> visit that time and space every now and again. It's just so
> hard to accept that the generation of people responsible for
> contributing to the evolution of what we call "Rock and
> Roll" can be so completely and utterly ignored.

Let me guess. You are over 55. You are finding that there are few if any radio stations that want you as a listener.

Get XM or Sirius. Commercial radio does NOT want you. We can not make a dime off you. Advertisers don't want to use radio to reach you, so we can not sell ads and pay the bills. So we ignore you since we can not change the marketing of America's big corporations.

> How much
> money have we spent on music and concerts in our lifetimes?
> And we're not dead yet! Our age group controls the wealth
> in the country

No, it does not. You arelooking at averages, when you should look at medians. the median pre-retirement person has assets worth less than $100 thousand and that is mostly in home equity, which produces no income. Half of retired Americans have nothing but Social Security.

Wealth is in the hands of the wealthy and those who are still working. The really wealthy inflate the averages, making it seem that the average American nearing retirement is worth over a half-million. Go to median, and this dream collapses.

> and will for at least another decade or so,
> and yet no one thinks we're a worthy audience. I may be
> getting old...but that sure doesn't make any sense to me.
> Thanks for the response.

Commerical radio programs for the audiences that advertisers want to reach. As soon as advertisers start buying 55+, we will provide programming. In the meantime, buy some CDs or download some tunes.

 

[davideduardo]

>
> As I read these posts, it's apparent to me that the MAJORITY
> of listeners are just as frustrated as me, but station
> owners and management care only about the revenue and just
> barely about the product and the quality of presentation.

Commercial stations live off the reveues advertising produces. we can not provide formats advertisers do not want.
>
> I may be old fashioned, but I think they're connected at the
> hip. Put on a good show and people will listen...plain and
> simple.

There are plenty of 55+ formats that will get tons of listeners. They will get just about zero revenues.

> The recent post comment that Boomers have left radio is
> pretty accurate, and most of us have left for the same
> reason.... the programming sucks... We're a bit older, but
> we're not drooling yet... do you think with a little
> research and good old hard work you could build a better
> playlist? If and when ANY station actually puts forth the
> effort and does that, they will reap the rewards.

The playlists are aimed at younger demos. Unfortunately, advertisers will not permit us to serve you, so we doin't.
>
> Will it be easy? NO. Can advertisers be sold? Not without
> hard work, creativity, and persistence.

The major advertisers who place buisness through agencies, whether national, regional or local, are not approachable by indvidual radio stations. The marketing manager of McDonalds or Budweiser does not take appointments with sellers from individual radio stations. But he or she does tell the agency who to target, based on consumer research and even product design.

There is nothing at all that single stations or single formats can do about this. And, this is why the formats you want will disappear from commercial radio.

> I don't know if the
> Management and Sales staffs are ready to actually earn their
> paychecks however, it's so much easier selling spots to the
> same demographic everyone else in the world is chasing.

The sellers are going after the available dollars. We do not fish in dry waterholes. No money here. Get it? No money here.


> Is there a station out there with the balls, determination,
> management team and support talent to attack the boomer
> market? I don't think so.

I don't know of many total fools who have paid millions for radio stations only to put on formats that have no advertiser appeal. So, to answer your question, there are no station owners on drugs or halucinating, and you will not get your format.

If you have so much money, Mr. Boomer, go for it... buy a couple of XM or Sirius radios. they specialize in serving the unserved niches that terrestrial radio can not or does not want to serve.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Some corrections.

>
> The "typical" person who agrees to keep an Arbitron diary
> is:
>
> a) reachable by phone(telemarketers). Do you take
> unsolicited calls? Are you on the "do not call list"?

Arbitron is not required to respect the do not call lists as they are not marketing anything.

Further, a significant portion of numbers called are RDD generated, and they will be including cellulars in both diary and PPM recruits.
>
> b) will, for the whopping total of $2, keep a seven day
> diary of all their radio listening. (yea, that's gonna be
> real accurate)

The incentives vary up to $10. The incentive is a recognized "guilt money" technique, and it works.

The PPM will use "points" earned by panel members. Same thing.
>
> Many intelligent, educated, busy people, just don't have the
> time or the inclination to participate in the Arbitron
> process.

And many do. I have seen the ZIP codes for many markets, and you see diaries comeing back from very upscale ZIPs. Studies show that diarykeeping is not ethnically nor economically based. Some people do, some don't. It has never been proven that non-participants listen to different staations than participants, which is the whole point.
>
> How do we know what these 300-400 songs are? Auditorium
> music testing.
> Who participates in these tests? People you can reach by
> phone and will agree to come take the test. The same people
> who Arbitron can reach by phone and agree to keep a diary!!!

It's surprising how many people you can get to come for a two hour test if you pay $100 or even up to $150 each. Did you know that in LA, Mercedes can get people who own $50 k or over luxury cars to go to focus groups for $100? And they drive as much as 30 miles to get the 100 bucks as they are interested.
>
> Would you carry a pager style People Meter? That's coming,
> and will help accuracy.

Actually, shares and AQH persons will change practically not at all. that was proven in the Philly test, and in Canada and England.
>
> Let's hope a better system of Ratings comes along that
> better represents all of
> the radio listening public!

You will get the PPM, which proves, after the Philly test, that the diary is a hell of a research method. And much cheaper.
>

 

[Mouth1390]

David, the thing I enjoy most about your posts is that you deal in facts and not emotion. For better or for worse, our medium does reach people on a very emotional level and they tend to react that way.

Meanwhile, the facts speak for themsleves. Any radio station that relies heavily on Arbitron ratings and advertising agency business has to appeal to a younger audience. It's that simple. They just won't do the business. Now, if we are talking about a smaller market, where the business is primarily local/direct retail. . .different story. Then the sales person can speak directly with the owner and make the case for their audience. And it can be compelling. I think that the success of KB Radio 1520 in Buffalo bears that out.

What I find most interesting is how people take the radio stations and personalities so close to the heart. And I mean that in a positive way. It is probably the only medium where that kind of connection is made on such a personal level.

But to go back to your thesis: the facts speak for themselves. And sometimes even when the facts are ignored, they still speak out. I mean, if I live to be 100, I will never understand the logic behind running WBBR, New York as business radio when (a)nobody listens and (b)it does less money than WNEW did with music in 1992. I know it is simply a promotional device for Bloomberg. . .but how much red ink are they willing to hemmorage ? But I digress.

The Oldies fans can still find the music if they look for it: WMTR 1250 in New Jersey, KB 1520 in Buffalo and even WLNG is Eastern Suffolk.

 

[mwebster]

This prooves you'all are getting old

They were having the same conversation on the Adult Standards board. Mostly they have given it up.

Baby boomer product marketing managers, ad agency media buyers and account execs were the ones who discovered demographics in the late 60's. Baby boomers didn't complain when their parents' favorite TV shows got cancelled and their favortie radio stations flipped in the early 70's. Baby boomers in marketing, advertising and broadcasting tried to explain to their parents that it was nothing personal - just business. Parents of baby boomers responded with exactly the same arguements y'all are making now (and the Adult Standards crowd made a few years ago).

But baby boomers were never going to get old.

What goes around, comes around.

If baby boomers are such free spending consumers, how come y'all are complaining about the loss of oldies stations and not going out a getting satellite radios and mp3 players? Could it be the marketing and advertising people are right to spend their dollars to reach demos more willing to buy?

 

[TheFonz]

Re: This prooves you'all are getting old

> [Could it be the marketing and advertising people are right
> to spend their dollars to reach demos more willing to buy?]

They ARE right. Their predecessors couldn't sell advertising for today's 55+ group thirty years ago when that group was 25+. Newspapers got those dollars. So there's no reason to believe that radio could sell it today. It's the advertisers who's aren't about to change their buying habits. Let's not blame the "boomers"...............let's blame radio sales departments over the last thirty years.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Stubborn... it is the advertisers, not the sellers.

> > [Could it be the marketing and advertising people are
> right
> > to spend their dollars to reach demos more willing to
> buy?]
>
> They ARE right. Their predecessors couldn't sell
> advertising for today's 55+ group thirty years ago when that
> group was 25+. Newspapers got those dollars. So there's no
> reason to believe that radio could sell it today. It's the
> advertisers who's aren't about to change their buying
> habits. Let's not blame the "boomers"...............let's
> blame radio sales departments over the last thirty years.

Man, are you stubborn.

Radio has always billed less than print. Fact of life. But newspapers are on a decline now since fewer and fewer younger people read them. The money is going into radio, cable, TV, web advertising, where the younger demos are.

This is the same reason why radioo stations catering to 55+ do not get much revenue. Media with 18-49 and 25-54 appeal get most of the money.

Radio station sales departments have absolutely no influence over the buying goals of agency accounts. Now, or 30 years ago.

The reason you see oldies and standards working well in smaller and unrated markets is that most of the buiness is local and direct. These advertisers can be shown how to get older demo consumers to come in. But if it is an agency account, forget it. Radio simply has to offer efficient delivery of the chosen demo. Again: radio sellers have NO control over agency account targeting, because, generally, the agency itself has no control.
>

 

[TheFonz]

Re: Stubborn... it is the advertisers, not the sellers.

>
> [Radio station sales departments have absolutely no influence
> over the buying goals of agency accounts. Now, or 30 years
> ago.]



My dictionary defines salesmanship as "the technique of or the skill in selling a product or idea". Enough said.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Stubborn... it is the advertisers, not the sellers.

> >
> > [Radio station sales departments have absolutely no
> influence
> > over the buying goals of agency accounts. Now, or 30 years
>
> > ago.]
>
>
>
> My dictionary defines salesmanship as "the technique of or
> the skill in selling a product or idea". Enough said.
>

Radio does not and can not approach agency clients.

Most are national or regional, and do not and can not be called on by media representatives. That is why they have an agency.

Except for certain extreme conditions, it is pretty much suicidal to call on an agency client without the agency´s consent, which is seldom given.