• 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

Programmers - Why not stagger stop set times?

W

Wexler

How often do you think the average listener will attempt to "tune-away" from one station because of a commercial, only to go to the direct competitor and find another commercial?

I found this today while attempting to listen to WIP, WPEN and WFAN. Obviously this is not the first time I have ever experienced that, but it got me thinking. Why do stations always break at the same time each day (unless it's Stern who breaks when he wants to)? Who does this benefit?

If the listener is our ultimate consumer and the industry is trying to find ways NOT to turn listeners off, why not attempt to make radio more attractive, and your station in particular more accomodating? I would think that by making sure that your station is never in break when your direct competitor was running commercials you would even have a chance to steal listeners.

I have heard the corn ball promo's back in the day where it was either WMMR or WYSP directing you to actually tune into the competitor's station to prove to you that they have way more commercials, but who cares? That is just a silly gimick.

I am talking about each day having a completely different schedule for breaks in an attempt to never run a commercial during the same exact time as your direct competitor.

So, I ask the experts - Why not?
 
The advertiser is our ultimate customer - not the listener.

Staggering stop sets trains listeners to hit pre-sets/scan buttons as soon as they hear a spot. Now, listeners are trained to stay put (or at least that scanning to avoid commercials is futile. They don't sample the competition. TSL's don't decrease.

Remember, spots are our reason for being. Spots pay the rent (and the payroll).


> How often do you think the average listener will attempt to
> "tune-away" from one station because of a commercial, only
> to go to the direct competitor and find another commercial?
>
> I found this today while attempting to listen to WIP, WPEN
> and WFAN. Obviously this is not the first time I have ever
> experienced that, but it got me thinking. Why do stations
> always break at the same time each day (unless it's Stern
> who breaks when he wants to)? Who does this benefit?
>
> If the listener is our ultimate consumer and the industry is
> trying to find ways NOT to turn listeners off, why not
> attempt to make radio more attractive, and your station in
> particular more accomodating? I would think that by making
> sure that your station is never in break when your direct
> competitor was running commercials you would even have a
> chance to steal listeners.
>
> I have heard the corn ball promo's back in the day where it
> was either WMMR or WYSP directing you to actually tune into
> the competitor's station to prove to you that they have way
> more commercials, but who cares? That is just a silly
> gimick.
>
> I am talking about each day having a completely different
> schedule for breaks in an attempt to never run a commercial
> during the same exact time as your direct competitor.
>
> So, I ask the experts - Why not?
>
 
Syndicated shows and computerized stations have been the real reasons for much of this. Most syndicated programs have their stop sets at the same times as all other syndicated programs. So when radio stations set up the template for the broadcast day, it makes life a whole lot easier to keep each hour the same. Changing the stop sets day after day would be a nightmare and impossible for the traffic manager who has to enter the spots into the system. Setting up each broadcast day is a lot of work to begin with - what you are suggesting is something I doubt you would want to do yourself.


> How often do you think the average listener will attempt to
> "tune-away" from one station because of a commercial, only
> to go to the direct competitor and find another commercial?
>
> I found this today while attempting to listen to WIP, WPEN
> and WFAN. Obviously this is not the first time I have ever
> experienced that, but it got me thinking. Why do stations
> always break at the same time each day (unless it's Stern
> who breaks when he wants to)? Who does this benefit?
>
> If the listener is our ultimate consumer and the industry is
> trying to find ways NOT to turn listeners off, why not
> attempt to make radio more attractive, and your station in
> particular more accomodating? I would think that by making
> sure that your station is never in break when your direct
> competitor was running commercials you would even have a
> chance to steal listeners.
>
> I have heard the corn ball promo's back in the day where it
> was either WMMR or WYSP directing you to actually tune into
> the competitor's station to prove to you that they have way
> more commercials, but who cares? That is just a silly
> gimick.
>
> I am talking about each day having a completely different
> schedule for breaks in an attempt to never run a commercial
> during the same exact time as your direct competitor.
>
> So, I ask the experts - Why not?
>
 
> The advertiser is our ultimate customer - not the listener.
>
> Staggering stop sets trains listeners to hit pre-sets/scan
> buttons as soon as they hear a spot. Now, listeners are
> trained to stay put (or at least that scanning to avoid
> commercials is futile. They don't sample the competition.
> TSL's don't decrease.
>
> Remember, spots are our reason for being. Spots pay the
> rent (and the payroll).
>
>
"Changing the stop sets day after day would be a nightmare and impossible for the traffic manager who has to enter the spots into the system. Setting up each broadcast day is a lot of work to begin with - what you are suggesting is something I doubt you would want to do yourself."


(I cut in pasted both responses so I could cover them in one post)

Which came first, the listener or the advertiser? Consumer versus Customer. If there are no listeners there will be no advertisers.

1st - I don't think that the listeners are all that "trained"...if you asked your average 18-34 or 25-54 I doubt 75% of them could tell you when the breaks were for their favorite station. I think to the listener a commercial is a commercial and the choice to stick around is based more on convenience (and how many screaming car dealers there are) regardless of when the break happens.

I think in the car, where there is the highest amount of listening, there is also the most amount of tune-away - simply because the buttons are right there -hell, mine are on the steering wheel. That's convenience, and I rarely listen to a spot, or a song I don't like, these days. Listen at work is obviously different.

In my theory, I am assuming that they are going to flip either way.

2nd - This was the response I really anticipated. It's a traffic nightmare...ok. Stations are willing to give away loads of cash, or wrap busses, or buy tv time, or even cut the amount of spots they run in an hour...in an attempt to hopefully bring in "new" listeners and or to get their current audience to listen longer.

Well, what if staggering the breaks actually does get new listeners to tune in and potentially keep? Isn't that the goal? So ultimately, "the way we have always done it" is more important than growth? How much does it cost to hire another traffic manager - as much as one bus wrap?

I guess this is assuming that listeners will tune in and stay because you have captured them while the other station was in break. The key assumption to all this is that your product actually is "better" than your direct competitor, thus they will stay.

I think that once the PPM actually goes into practice, or some other electronic monitoring device, the industry is going to be astounded by the amount of tune-away. No one honestly is going to track in a diary exactly how many times they hit the buttons in the daily commute to work. It's impossible.

Once there is actually an "accurate" monitoring service rather than something "arbitrary", radio people are going to be in a mad scramble to "fix" things. Stations and groups are going to have to "evolve" before they go "extinct". Doing things "the same way for years" is going to be the demise of the industry, in my opinion.
 
> The advertiser is our ultimate customer - not the listener.

That statement is so true, and especially in the last five or so years, advertisiers have been getting the crappy end of the stick...the very people who pay to keep the lights on and pay our salaries...we've been taking their spots and burying them in long stopsets, where they received less attention from the listeners...our product.

The structure of most clock hours in radio has everything to do with radio playing to the methodology of Arbitron...with traditional quarter hour maintainence, everybody stops at the same places...:20, :35 and :50...playing to the diary system we all knew was BS. Now, people meter measurement will change all that, and I'm hoping that it will cause radio to open up its thinking, and look at new ways to structure or unstructure what it does.

Our AM station offers a "one unit stopset" as a benefit...the advertiser's message stands alone, which will cause a greater level of atention to be paid to the spot...then our listeners are conditioned to expect to be right back to music afterwards. It worked for KHJ...why wouldnt it work now?
 
Amen. Spot sets are the commercial equivalent of pledge breaks. The NAB Code (RIP) used to put the ceiling at three spots in a row - a policy that made good business sense. And good programming sense.

In fairness, spots are lot less entertaining than they used to be. Time was agencies worked to get people to pay attention.

>
> That statement is so true, and especially in the last five
> or so years, advertisiers have been getting the crappy end
> of the stick...the very people who pay to keep the lights on
> and pay our salaries...we've been taking their spots and
> burying them in long stopsets, where they received less
> attention from the listeners...our product.
>
> The structure of most clock hours in radio has everything to
> do with radio playing to the methodology of Arbitron...with
> traditional quarter hour maintainence, everybody stops at
> the same places...:20, :35 and :50...playing to the diary
> system we all knew was BS. Now, people meter measurement
> will change all that, and I'm hoping that it will cause
> radio to open up its thinking, and look at new ways to
> structure or unstructure what it does.
>
> Our AM station offers a "one unit stopset" as a
> benefit...the advertiser's message stands alone, which will
> cause a greater level of atention to be paid to the
> spot...then our listeners are conditioned to expect to be
> right back to music afterwards. It worked for KHJ...why
> wouldnt it work now?
>
 
When I worked at WTUX, we were not allowed to play any spots back-to-back. There had to a song between each. If it was a heavy spot hour you had to at least give a weather report or SOMETHING between spots.

KYW probably gives its advertisers the best bang for the buck. They have something between each spot - a story, a live promo, telling you "the shore forecast is comming up", or some such item that you will notice before the next ad.

With the thread here about John DeBella, I got to thinking that I had not heard him in awhile. I listened to WMGK for over six minutes. I never did hear DeBella. All I heard was ad after ad. So I switched back to my car's cd player.

What are these stations thinking? (I know, money).

> > The advertiser is our ultimate customer - not the
> listener.
>
> That statement is so true, and especially in the last five
> or so years, advertisiers have been getting the crappy end
> of the stick...the very people who pay to keep the lights on
> and pay our salaries...we've been taking their spots and
> burying them in long stopsets, where they received less
> attention from the listeners...our product.
>
> The structure of most clock hours in radio has everything to
> do with radio playing to the methodology of Arbitron...with
> traditional quarter hour maintainence, everybody stops at
> the same places...:20, :35 and :50...playing to the diary
> system we all knew was BS. Now, people meter measurement
> will change all that, and I'm hoping that it will cause
> radio to open up its thinking, and look at new ways to
> structure or unstructure what it does.
>
> Our AM station offers a "one unit stopset" as a
> benefit...the advertiser's message stands alone, which will
> cause a greater level of atention to be paid to the
> spot...then our listeners are conditioned to expect to be
> right back to music afterwards. It worked for KHJ...why
> wouldnt it work now?
>
 
Good post...(more)

I think some of the things you cite are beginning to happen, slowly. The influence of Clear Channel's push to limit the length of stopsets is starting to trickle down to other radio companies and stations, and you're absolutely correct that the PPM will change the way radio is rated and programmed.


> > The advertiser is our ultimate customer - not the
> listener.
> >
> > Staggering stop sets trains listeners to hit pre-sets/scan
>
> > buttons as soon as they hear a spot. Now, listeners are
> > trained to stay put (or at least that scanning to avoid
> > commercials is futile. They don't sample the competition.
>
> > TSL's don't decrease.
> >
> > Remember, spots are our reason for being. Spots pay the
> > rent (and the payroll).
> >
> >
> "Changing the stop sets day after day would be a nightmare
> and impossible for the traffic manager who has to enter the
> spots into the system. Setting up each broadcast day is a
> lot of work to begin with - what you are suggesting is
> something I doubt you would want to do yourself."
>
>
> (I cut in pasted both responses so I could cover them in one
> post)
>
> Which came first, the listener or the advertiser? Consumer
> versus Customer. If there are no listeners there will be no
> advertisers.
>
> 1st - I don't think that the listeners are all that
> "trained"...if you asked your average 18-34 or 25-54 I doubt
> 75% of them could tell you when the breaks were for their
> favorite station. I think to the listener a commercial is a
> commercial and the choice to stick around is based more on
> convenience (and how many screaming car dealers there are)
> regardless of when the break happens.
>
> I think in the car, where there is the highest amount of
> listening, there is also the most amount of tune-away -
> simply because the buttons are right there -hell, mine are
> on the steering wheel. That's convenience, and I rarely
> listen to a spot, or a song I don't like, these days.
> Listen at work is obviously different.
>
> In my theory, I am assuming that they are going to flip
> either way.
>
> 2nd - This was the response I really anticipated. It's a
> traffic nightmare...ok. Stations are willing to give away
> loads of cash, or wrap busses, or buy tv time, or even cut
> the amount of spots they run in an hour...in an attempt to
> hopefully bring in "new" listeners and or to get their
> current audience to listen longer.
>
> Well, what if staggering the breaks actually does get new
> listeners to tune in and potentially keep? Isn't that the
> goal? So ultimately, "the way we have always done it" is
> more important than growth? How much does it cost to hire
> another traffic manager - as much as one bus wrap?
>
> I guess this is assuming that listeners will tune in and
> stay because you have captured them while the other station
> was in break. The key assumption to all this is that your
> product actually is "better" than your direct competitor,
> thus they will stay.
>
> I think that once the PPM actually goes into practice, or
> some other electronic monitoring device, the industry is
> going to be astounded by the amount of tune-away. No one
> honestly is going to track in a diary exactly how many times
> they hit the buttons in the daily commute to work. It's
> impossible.
>
> Once there is actually an "accurate" monitoring service
> rather than something "arbitrary", radio people are going to
> be in a mad scramble to "fix" things. Stations and groups
> are going to have to "evolve" before they go "extinct".
> Doing things "the same way for years" is going to be the
> demise of the industry, in my opinion.
>
 
Another key point is this: Most stations now program only for their P-1s. There are so few battles for format dominance in any given market these days that it's assumed any P-1 who tunes out for spots will tune back in soon anyway. If there was real competition between rivals in the same format, you might see some spot staggering (but I doubt it).

Funny story: I remember the AOR war in my hometown (then a top 50 market) in the early 80s -- the two battling stations were jiggling their stopset times nearly every day to be the first to get back to a long sweep. It was interesting, although in the end, they both decided it wasn't worth it -- they'd rather risk breaking at the same times than compromise their first two quarter hours. Both ended up with two long stopsets at :35 and :50 followed by 40 minute music sweeps from :55 to :35.
 
> The advertiser is our ultimate customer - not the listener.
>
> Staggering stop sets trains listeners to hit pre-sets/scan
> buttons as soon as they hear a spot. Now, listeners are
> trained to stay put (or at least that scanning to avoid
> commercials is futile. They don't sample the competition.
> TSL's don't decrease.
>
> Remember, spots are our reason for being. Spots pay the
> rent (and the payroll).
>

Pardon me while I seethe.

Yes, you're correct that advertising pays the bills.

Radio stations had better consider themselves as in 3-way partnerships between themselves, advertisers and listeners. You have to serve both masters.

If your listeners jump ship, as I have, to satellite radio, public radio, MP3s, podcasts, and webcasts, advertisers' messages won't be heard by anyone, and advertising rates will then fall.

It seems to me the pendulum is swinging too far towards the advertiser these days, and not enough towards the listener.

The only value-added I derive from commercial radio is from weather bulletins (a tornado is here! now!) and traffic reports. Even those weatehr bulletins are a dicey proposition because I get alerts on my cellphone -- admittedly as long as I am in my home region. Meanwhile traffic reports are migrating to other devices as well.

Even live sports are less of a draw nowadays, due to satellite radio.

Richard / Allentown
 
Listener (singular) vs. listeners (plural)

You make a valid point in that radio has to serve its listeners as well as serve its advertisers, however one must understand that to be profitable, most commercial radio stations have to deliver large numbers of listeners to their advertisers, therefore radio is catering to listeners as a group and not to a listener as a singular entity. Successful radio stations put a product on the air that draws in a broad audience they can deliver to advertisers, they don't base programming decisions on placating a minority of passionate individual listeners because there are not enough of them to interest advertisers. Satellite radio works on an entirely different business model, since its listeners pay for the service, they can cater their programming on a more individual basis. Satellite can offer hundreds of channels, at least one of which will likely placate a passionate individual listener, while an single radio station can only offer one channel (or a company in a particular market can only offer several). It's not that terrestrial radio caters too much to advertisers, but radio must appeal to the broadest possible audience if it wants to make money. It is called "broadcasting" for a reason.


> > The advertiser is our ultimate customer - not the
> listener.
> >
> > Staggering stop sets trains listeners to hit pre-sets/scan
>
> > buttons as soon as they hear a spot. Now, listeners are
> > trained to stay put (or at least that scanning to avoid
> > commercials is futile. They don't sample the competition.
>
> > TSL's don't decrease.
> >
> > Remember, spots are our reason for being. Spots pay the
> > rent (and the payroll).
> >
>
> Pardon me while I seethe.
>
> Yes, you're correct that advertising pays the bills.
>
> Radio stations had better consider themselves as in 3-way
> partnerships between themselves, advertisers and listeners.
> You have to serve both masters.
>
> If your listeners jump ship, as I have, to satellite radio,
> public radio, MP3s, podcasts, and webcasts, advertisers'
> messages won't be heard by anyone, and advertising rates
> will then fall.
>
> It seems to me the pendulum is swinging too far towards the
> advertiser these days, and not enough towards the listener.
>
> The only value-added I derive from commercial radio is from
> weather bulletins (a tornado is here! now!) and traffic
> reports. Even those weatehr bulletins are a dicey
> proposition because I get alerts on my cellphone --
> admittedly as long as I am in my home region. Meanwhile
> traffic reports are migrating to other devices as well.
>
> Even live sports are less of a draw nowadays, due to
> satellite radio.
>
> Richard / Allentown
>
 
Re: Listener (singular) vs. listeners (plural)

> You make a valid point in that radio has to serve its
> listeners as well as serve its advertisers, however one must
> understand that to be profitable, most commercial radio
> stations have to deliver large numbers of listeners to their
> advertisers, therefore radio is catering to listeners as a
> group and not to a listener as a singular entity. Successful
> radio stations put a product on the air that draws in a
> broad audience they can deliver to advertisers, they don't
> base programming decisions on placating a minority of
> passionate individual listeners because there are not enough
> of them to interest advertisers.

I agree -- sort of.

One has to consider the market as a market of individuals, though, because that's what it is.

Is a market better served by three stations chasing the same demographic, or three stations chasing different demographics?

The original discussion focused on stations all running advertising at the same times of the hour, and why that was good vs. bad. My argument remains that too much imitation will only drive listeners to alternative ways to fill the space between their ears, because they'll put all commercial radio stations into the same bucket and simply switch the radio off. That is a "lose-lose" proposition for commercial radio as a medium.
 
Re: Listener (singular) vs. listeners (plural)

"Is a market better served by three stations chasing the same demographic, or three stations chasing different demographics?"

A lot of it depends on the size of the market, a lot of it depends on how well (or how poorly) the stations in a market are serving the demographic and it always depends on the demographics the stations and advertisers are trying to reach. In a market with only three stations, the market would likely be best served by each station going after a different demographic, since there's likely to be three different demographic groups advertisers would find desirable. In larger markets like Philadelphia, many stations are better off competing against other stations for the same demographic rather than going after an unprofitable one. In other instances, it can be worthwhile for a station to directly go up against a competitor if it thinks it can do a better job of serving that demographic.

The reality of commercial radio is that there will always be demographic groups that its not profitable to serve and those demographics are the most likely to find alternatives to commercial radio. I think that's where the market for non-comms, satellite, etc. exists.


> > You make a valid point in that radio has to serve its
> > listeners as well as serve its advertisers, however one
> must
> > understand that to be profitable, most commercial radio
> > stations have to deliver large numbers of listeners to
> their
> > advertisers, therefore radio is catering to listeners as a
>
> > group and not to a listener as a singular entity.
> Successful
> > radio stations put a product on the air that draws in a
> > broad audience they can deliver to advertisers, they don't
>
> > base programming decisions on placating a minority of
> > passionate individual listeners because there are not
> enough
> > of them to interest advertisers.
>
> I agree -- sort of.
>
> One has to consider the market as a market of individuals,
> though, because that's what it is.
>
> Is a market better served by three stations chasing the same
> demographic, or three stations chasing different
> demographics?
>
> The original discussion focused on stations all running
> advertising at the same times of the hour, and why that was
> good vs. bad. My argument remains that too much imitation
> will only drive listeners to alternative ways to fill the
> space between their ears, because they'll put all commercial
> radio stations into the same bucket and simply switch the
> radio off. That is a "lose-lose" proposition for commercial
> radio as a medium.
>
 
Re: Listener (singular) vs. listeners (plural)

> The reality of commercial radio is that there will always be
> demographic groups that its not profitable to serve and
> those demographics are the most likely to find alternatives
> to commercial radio. I think that's where the market for
> non-comms, satellite, etc. exists.
>

Good argument. Thanks for posting it.

Richard / Allentown
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom