pratt/insidethenumbers test

[KOOL Listener Lauren]

Who cares? This is old stuff and not even relevant now. Good or bad, ratings are over-rated. At the end of the day, all that matters is revenue. Ratings are just one of many sales tools and certainly not the most used barometer for long lasting client relationships. Ratings are greatly helped or hindered by the popularity of formats, exclusivity, amount of competition, dayparts, budgets and many other variables such as we are seeing now with PPM methodology as opposed to diaries. The only way to keep a true score is by revenue, and in turn, what you can personally take home at the end of the day. Amateurs play for trophies. Pro’s play for money.

And in markets the size of Phoenix where a large amount of business is transactional, there is a close correlation between ratings and revenue. While relationships are also of considerable importance, without significant audience size, sales success will not happen.

If you want stations that sell based on relationships and such, go to Prescott.

Sure, David-- that makes plenty of sense, but it isn't always the case that ratings and revenue correlate, and I think that was the point. Especially if having Dave Pratt on your station.

Besides, in our own market earlier in '09, didn't we find KYOT revenue near that of KFYI's? The ratings game was an entirely different story.

And did you just tell the Morning Mayor to go to Prescott?! (Hope not. I'm a fan.)

 

[Ford]

The only way to keep a true score is by revenue, and in turn, what you can personally take home at the end of the day. Amateurs play for trophies. Pro’s play for money.

A few thoughts...

1. Revenue cannot be generated by an air talent alone. A great talent with great ratings that is sold by a mediocre sales team can be beaten by an average talent with average ratings that is sold by a great sales team.

2. If the revenue generated by a talent (and their sales staff) does not offset the cost of that talent, then its a wash. "Reality television" figured this out over a decade ago. Instead of paying each star a million bucks a week to generate entertaining television (as NBC did with Friends and Seinfeld) some smart guy at CBS found out you could pay one guy a million bucks a season to generate the same ratings and revenue on Survivor...the Thursday night successor to Seinfeld.

3. "Amateurs play for trophies. Pro’s play for money. " Absolutely. But if you've set your price so high that nobody will let you play, then you get neither money nor trophies.

 

[testing]

Amateurs play for trophies. Pro’s play for money.

you mean "Pros", I think. and some don't play for trophies OR money. they just play.

 

[davideduardo]

Sure, David-- that makes plenty of sense, but it isn't always the case that ratings and revenue correlate, and I think that was the point. Especially if having Dave Pratt on your station.

The correlation is strongest on sales demos. And for transactional business, it does not matter if Barry Goldwater comes back to do a show, the buy is made based on the cost per point, so an automated station will get the same rate per listener as the one with the expensive talent.

As another poster very accurately said, the differences are mostly due to sales skills, not ratings.

Besides, in our own market earlier in '09, didn't we find KYOT revenue near that of KFYI's? The ratings game was an entirely different story.

In '08 the two tied in billing. KFYI leans very very old, so it gets a lower rate... but since it has more inventory, it can make up for that by selling 5 or 6 minutes more of spots an hour.

And did you just tell the Morning Mayor to go to Prescott?! (Hope not. I'm a fan.)

No, he would probably replace someone there I actually like to listen to, which would be a shame.

 

[DangerousLoner]

This is a really good example of why so much internet discussion is pointless. Without identity, not just to provide credibility, but to maintain the social contract, these discussions almost always turn petty and mean. The single ray of light, of course, is Akbar, who despite his anonymity, maintains a wonderfully tongue in cheek (Akbar's tongue in Nurse Jeff's cheek) tone.

Dave Pratt coming in to the conversation and asking "Who cares?" is delightful and says it all. ClapClapClap, Dave.

I really believe that we all should take Dave's lead and publish our full and real names. I will start.

Though I will continue to post from my one room cabin in the Pacific Northwest when atmospheric conditions permit me to steal wifi from the McDonalds on the interstate, my real name is Stanislov Chimpspew.

Doing my part to maintain the social contract,

Stan

 

[pattiwacki]

Are you related to the Brawley Chimpspews?

 

[DrAkbar]

The single ray of light, of course, is Akbar, who despite his anonymity, maintains a wonderfully tongue in cheek (Akbar's tongue in Nurse Jeff's cheek) tone.

YIKES! In spite of numerous calls for us to come out of the identity closet, Nurse Jeff and I much prefer to blend into the ambiance that is the beloved Buckeye Media Hut. Sorry, we're not the kiss and tell type

Though I will continue to post from my one room cabin in the Pacific Northwest when atmospheric conditions permit me to steal wifi from the McDonalds on the interstate, my real name is Stanislov Chimpspew.

Would you like to sooper size that drink and fries with your free wi-fi, Mr DangerousLoner Chimpspew?

 

[DangerousLoner]

No, I believe Brawley is from the Maine Chimpspews, who insist on adding the unnecessary "s" on the end of the name.

I am from the South Carolina Chimpspew clan, my Great Grandfather being Magnus Chimpspew, who though primarily a tobacco farmer, invented the circular chewing tobacco tin. Before Great Grandpa Magnus, most chewers kept their tobacco in square, or occasionally rectangular tins, which could cause serious injuries to the buttocks should the chewer sit down while the tin was badly positioned in the back pocket.

He was also, unfortunately, a Communist.

As for Akbar and N.J. You aint' foolin' nobody, fellas.

 

[pattiwacki]

Before Great Grandpa Magnus, most chewers kept their tobacco in square, or occasionally rectangular tins, which could cause serious injuries to the buttocks should the chewer sit down while the tin was badly positioned in the back pocket.

Hence, the term "butt chewin", ouch! Thanks for the history, DL-