• 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

Ratings or Revenue?

What is more important to the survival of a station? High ratings, or station revenue? . There are tons of stations in the Atlanta book (for example) that don't even get 1.0 ratings. Most of them are Hispanic stations whith God-awful ratings but (I assume) a ridiculously high amount of ad revenue. Meanwhile there are stations that pull in ratings of between 1-3 and keep flipping formats all the time. If I read into this correctly ratings mean diddley squat while ad revenue is what really matters. Is this a accurate conclusion? If so than why even keep track of ratings?

PS: I am an "outsider" to the business.
 
Brian Donegan said:
What is more important to the survival of a station? High ratings, or station revenue? ....

If I read into this correctly ratings mean diddley squat while ad revenue is what really matters. Is this a accurate conclusion? If so than why even keep track of ratings?

PS: I am an "outsider" to the business.

What is more important to a person? Length of life? Quality of life?

Equally impossible to generalize as is the answere of the ratings/revenue question.

For the most part ratings = revenue. Simplistic. More accurately put, high ratings equate to the potential for more revenue when there is a good sales force applying the numbers properly to get the business. And, good ratings equate to a more valuable product for which a station can ask a higher price.

Not every station can be #1 in a market. Obvious, of course. But there is value, particularly with advertising agencies, in the #2, #3 and, in some cases, #4 rankings especially when there is a listener demographic that gets the attention for one of their particular clients. For instance, if the #1 station gets highest overall but the demos suggest the listeners are mostly 12 to 18 years of age McDonald's is going to want to make a big buy but a Cadillac dealer will not.

An interesting exercise would be for you to listen for a couple of days to the #1 station in your town. Note what their format is, being specific. Not just "music" or "talk". Note some detail. Also note who is buying their advertising. What products? You'll find a correlation between product and audience age. Then do the same for #2 and #3. You'll easily see the difference.

Is that to say the lower rated stations aren't making money? For some, those dithering between formats, it's probably a safe bet that they're money losers. But for many with apparently low ratings and perhaps also lousy signals, you may find very few advertisements but lots of sponsored programming (brokered stuff). These owners are making a living off their investment. Not necessarily getting rich; but making a living.

In a few instances you'll find stations that have been in the same hands for a long, long time and have been "doing" a format with a small but loyal audience. In many of those cases it's a person (the owner) doing what he/she loves and, so long as it's self-supporting, damn the competition. These stations usually are sold off within minutes after the owner goes to the Great NAB Convention In The Sky (NOT satellite radio...a higher authority!).

Always remember, though, the big group ownerships want to see ratings, ratings, ratings to get the highest spot rates and greatest number of sales. Community service? That's for the dedicated old-time owners and plain fools.
 
AKLes had a nice post; I'd agree with much of it. But the easy answer, in my opinion, is revenue matters most.

I live in Phoenix and the #1 revenue producing station is an AC station that skews toward women listeners. It uses a Christmas music format for about six weeks during that time of the year. Their numbers go up accordingly. But for the other 10 months, their ratings are o.k. - not bad, but o.k. This station makes big bucks year-round because they have a lot of listeners in their demographic.

The #1 rated station (Arbitron 12+) makes plenty of money, too. But they have higher overhead because they're a News/Talk station. They have a mix of local and national hosts, a news department, and so on. That costs more to operate than a music station with a mix of local and syndicated hosts.

Then are are some stations that keep perking along with mediocre ratings for years and years. The ownership has held these properties for years and so they're not servicing a lot of debt. They have a decent-sized niche audience and loyal advertisers. They'd probably like bigger ratings, but they are still making good money.

The funny thing about ratings is they can be interpreted so many different ways. Sales execs have to find an interpretation that is advantageous to their station so they can bring in clients and... revenue. Give me a station with high ratings, and I'll bring revenue. Give me a station with almost no ratings but a core, loyal audience, I'll bring you revenue too; just not as much.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom