Easy to check numbers and "facts." What is tough is the interpretation of what the "facts" means. To an outside consultant it means one thing, to a sales person another and to talent another. I travel the country and feel Seattle talent is on par with most markets, better than many. The fact that several Seattle shows have made it national like Delilah, Rivers, T-Man is a compliment to the talent here. Success or failure in syndication is not a reflection of talent one way or another. Bob Rivers show did go into syndication and worked in a couple of markets but as I recall the LA station pulled it after just a couple of weeks. Same thing is happening to T-Man. Be real. A good show needs time to develop. To an outsider you might say these shows failed. Those on the inside know they didn't get a chance to succeed. It takes a year or two with some promotion backing a show before you know if it works or not. This is an example of looking at the same set of "facts" and drawing different conclusions.
That brings me to Stern. Stern took over a year to begin pulling real numbers in Seattle. I checked his last year against Rivers and Stern did surpass him but not at Rivers expense or the T-Man's expense. Stern built his own audience. You could make a case that Rivers and T-Man held up very well against Stern compared to shows elsewhere because their ratings did not really decline, while Sterns jumped. Stern did beat them in the final months, but by drawing audience from other stations or non-radio listeners. This is a perfect case of an outsider looking at the same numbers and drawing different conclusions.
I find this board most fascinating when people look at the same set of "facts" and come to different conclusions. That is why this is a creative business. The information/ratings/research are there, but it is all in the interpretation. Radioprof has an outsiders view which is factually accurate but may be missing some information. My favorite mistake I see on radio boards is when posters see a station with a huge 12+ and think they are winning or a low 12+ and think they are losing. Success over a four book in a target demo is proof of success. Seemingly low performers in Seattle, that are not, would be KIRO, KOMO, KPLZ, KMTT and JACK. In the "sweet sales demo" these stations do better than most expect and their billing proves it. Same set of "facts" with different conclusions.
That brings me to Stern. Stern took over a year to begin pulling real numbers in Seattle. I checked his last year against Rivers and Stern did surpass him but not at Rivers expense or the T-Man's expense. Stern built his own audience. You could make a case that Rivers and T-Man held up very well against Stern compared to shows elsewhere because their ratings did not really decline, while Sterns jumped. Stern did beat them in the final months, but by drawing audience from other stations or non-radio listeners. This is a perfect case of an outsider looking at the same numbers and drawing different conclusions.
I find this board most fascinating when people look at the same set of "facts" and come to different conclusions. That is why this is a creative business. The information/ratings/research are there, but it is all in the interpretation. Radioprof has an outsiders view which is factually accurate but may be missing some information. My favorite mistake I see on radio boards is when posters see a station with a huge 12+ and think they are winning or a low 12+ and think they are losing. Success over a four book in a target demo is proof of success. Seemingly low performers in Seattle, that are not, would be KIRO, KOMO, KPLZ, KMTT and JACK. In the "sweet sales demo" these stations do better than most expect and their billing proves it. Same set of "facts" with different conclusions.