Rochester Numbers Winter '12

[TheBigA]

You keep trying to make sweeping generalizations, and end up contradicting yourself because radio is a LOCAL product, and markets differ.

"Sweeping generalizations?" Let's start with "investing in local talent will increase audience and revenues." That's what you've been saying this entire thread. Hiring news staff in fringe time won't return WHAM to the top of the pile. They're better off focusing on their daytime talk staff, and keeping them happy.

You're equating a music intensive format with news-talk or all news? Certainly a person of your breadth of experience and acumen knows this is like comparing apples to oranges.

That's an interesting point. Who is beating WHAM right now? Is it another news talk station or a music intensive station? Same with WBEN? Will investing more money in AM talk or news guarantee that you will beat a music intensive FM station? I think the days for that are starting to end.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

Don't be coy. Anybody who's been in this business for more than six months knows there's a distinct difference in the amount of time it takes to turn around a music (intensive) format compared to the turnaround time required to turn around a news or news-talk format. A music intensive format can be turned into a winner, top five in demos, maybe even #1 in six months (with a little luck and a lot of promo money, three months); whereas a news-talk or news format, AM or FM takes years.

 

[TheBigA]

A music intensive format can be turned into a winner, top five in demos, maybe even #1 in six months (with a little luck and a lot of promo money, three months); whereas a news-talk or news format, AM or FM takes years.

And yet several companies have flipped stations from music to sports talk and become winners in just two books. It happened in Boston. So if you provide the right kind of talk, it can be just like music.

But I ask you, if you're a guy with a limited budget, why would you invest that money in a news or talk format if it will take years to pay off? You wonder why new owners aren't coming into radio. This is why.

 

[SirRoxalot]

But this discussion is about well-entrenched owners gutting a (formerly) well-respected news/talk station, not establishing a new one. New owners aren't coming into radio because they don't want to swim with sharks who already own the pool - or at least the part of the pool where the water is. How many really decent signals are for sale - except through the duress of bankruptcy or shareholder revolt.

 

[TheBigA]

If Clear Channel donated WHAM to WXXI, even they wouldn't return staffing to its previous level. Those days are over. And it's not about debt. It's about reality.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

A music intensive format can be turned into a winner, top five in demos, maybe even #1 in six months (with a little luck and a lot of promo money, three months); whereas a news-talk or news format, AM or FM takes years.

And yet several companies have flipped stations from music to sports talk and become winners in just two books. It happened in Boston. So if you provide the right kind of talk, it can be just like music.

But I ask you, if you're a guy with a limited budget, why would you invest that money in a news or talk format if it will take years to pay off? You wonder why new owners aren't coming into radio. This is why.

We were discussing news-talk and news stations. You've conveniently shifted the discussion to all-sports, which is a different breed of cat. For the record, I've worked in all three formats. But for the sake of discussion, sports-talk blooms a bit faster than news and news-talk. Boston is a major market with four major league teams to sustain consumer and fan interest. Buffalo and Rochester are different, with the Bills and Sabres driving interest. The ratings for sports stations in Rochester (WROC, WHTK) pale by comparison to Buffalo's sports station (WGR), which to date, has performed almost according to the season, strong in Fall and Winter, competitive in Spring if the Sabres are in the playoffs, and lagging in Summer. Now that WGR has the radio rights to the Bills, Summer ratings should be more robust and Fall ratings, traditionally very good, should be through the roof.

As to news-talk, I think SirRoxalot makes a valid point about newcomers avoiding the news-talk fray because the old guard owns most of the good spectrum (which used to be called 'signals' before the FCC revised its terminology and mission.) Brad Riter made a valiant charge on WECK, but the station was miscast and inadequately funded to compete with WGR and/or WBEN. News-talk, as we know, requires manpower, hard resources and promotion, all of which is capital intensive.

As an observer, WBTA Batavia seems to have a strong small market formula in place. Sandwiched between Buffalo and Rochester, WBTA (AM 1490) successfully offers a live, locally driven morning show and (automated) AC through the day, complimenting this with a very strong local news department and presence in all dayparts.

 

[TheBigA]

Brad Riter made a valiant charge on WECK, but the station was miscast and inadequately funded to compete with WGR and/or WBEN. News-talk, as we know, requires manpower, hard resources and promotion, all of which is capital intensive.

So in the end, even with the owners "gutting" stations, cutting budgets and staff, it's still not enough to level the playing field for smaller owners? How much of a head start do they need?

 

[SirRoxalot]

Gutting of radio news has simply driven listeners to alternative means of obtaining information. Radio has become unreliable to a great extent, so people go to those sources who still have the resources to do news - local TV and newspaper websites. TV reporters are being asked to do audio and video as well as print versions of their stories. That works out about as well as guys who have a great face for radio moving into TV.

It's also opened the door for smart NPR outlets to expand their local news reach in order to help fill the gap. Unfortunately, too many NPR stations are the "Little Sisters of the Poor" to big PBS outlets who have no local news component, and see them as an expense, not a profit center.

 

[TheBigA]

Gutting of radio news has simply driven listeners to alternative means of obtaining information.

They went to those other places BEFORE radio news was gutted. That's what made radio news expendable.

I haven't listened to a radio traffic report in 8 years. The fact that my local station is now outsourcing rather than using its own helicopter means absolutely nothing to me. I was gone the minute I was able to get specific reports that catered to my specific commute. No radio station could ever do that for me.

I haven't bought a newspaper in ten years. There's nothing a radio station or a newspaper can do to change that. Spending money on salaries and benefits is money down the drain. I'm not spending it on the service I get, so why should a station?

The NPR people are right. Radio is an expense. Unless that expense services a real profit center, like TV or other media, it can't afford to exist alone. The smaller stations demonstrate that every day.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Oh, please show some research that agrees with you. The gutting of news stations began long before the Internet took hold, before the growth of broadband, and before newspapers got into the on-line game in any meaningful way.

BTW, it's nice to hear that you have so many opinions about media that you don't actually use. Then again, not actually knowing about a specific media or market hasn't stopped you from arguing your opinions in the past. I'm just puzzled why you bother to post on all these radio boards when you don't really consume the product, or care about it. You're pretty obviously part of the 7-10% who aren't radio listeners. You certainly are the kind of customer that your local ISP and/or cellular provider absolutely LOVES. Maybe you should go post on those discussion boards and help them improved their product.

Apparently, there are still a few Luddites out there who use radio, like its content, and don't try to fiddle with their iPhones while they're driving. Here in our little backwater, traffic reports work nicely, weather's important, and we actually like to hear about what's going on around town. I'm sure that we'll die off soon anyway, so perhaps you could humor us for a little while longer. Oh, BTW, we still have a few dollars to spend on cars, rest homes, and cemetery plots, so there are a few advertisers who would like our business.

 

[Bob1370]

"The gutting of news stations began long before the Internet took hold, before the growth of broadband, and before newspapers got into the on-line game in any meaningful way."

And the Arbitron numbers for the TSL of stations that did that also took a tumble as well, with bad results for both AQH and revenue. As Casey Stengel used to say, you could look it up...

 

[TheBigA]

I'm just puzzled why you bother to post on all these radio boards when you don't really consume the product, or care about it.

Because I work in the radio business. I have for a long time. And I know BS when I hear it, and you're full of it. I care a lot about the product, and don't see any connection between caring about product and hiring large staffs. I used to hear the same BS from the union guys who insisted we needed five people in a room to do a 3 minute radio news cast. What a pile of crap. We used to have a producer, engineer, writer, director, and reader. The only real person working was the reader. Today, you don't even need the reader.

I don't need a large staff to get great work done, and I prove it every day.

 

[TheBigA]

And the Arbitron numbers for the TSL of stations that did that also took a tumble as well, with bad results for both AQH and revenue. As Casey Stengel used to say, you could look it up...

First of all, TSL numbers didn't go down by much, in fact it went up at quite a few. One of the hallmarks of the Howard Stern ratings was he had huge TSL, but average cume. Most talk shows have the same thing. Music took a hit because music became more fragmented. Second of all, anyone who did any amount of research into the numbers will tell you it had nothing to do with the amount of money spent doing local news. It had more to do with other far more important things competing for the users' attention, like family, work, TV, video games, and local activities. As I've been saying, you can double or triple the budgets of radio stations, hire more people, but it won't get me to stop spending time with my family.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

Brad Riter made a valiant charge on WECK, but the station was miscast and inadequately funded to compete with WGR and/or WBEN. News-talk, as we know, requires manpower, hard resources and promotion, all of which is capital intensive.

So in the end, even with the owners "gutting" stations, cutting budgets and staff, it's still not enough to level the playing field for smaller owners? How much of a head start do they need?

WECK, a news-talk/sports-talk turnaround with 1kW on 1230 challenged WBEN, a 5 kW heritage on 930. WBEN may have downsized its newsroom but it still had more manpower, cash, cache and cachet than did WECK. (Nowhere did I write the word "gutting." Be careful.) The first two rounds may have been even, but the fight was a mismatch and was called by the fifth. Even a person with your background and experience would have found it a daunting fight.

 

[TheBigA]

Even a person with your background and experience would have found it a daunting fight.

You have no clue about the battles I have fought and won. I've taken on greater Golliaths in far larger markets and won. And did it with a smaller budget. But I agree that a 1K AM today isn't going to cut it.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Actually, TSL has declined steadily since the 80s. You might want to check some actual facts for a change:

http://www.markramseymedia.com/2008/11/radio-tsl-drops-again/

Note that this was long before the impact of the Internet, MP3 players, or other "new" media - and continued as the reliance on consultants and pre-packaged programming were embraced by GMs from the sales side of the house who were looking for ways to work around the need for those pesky talent guys. LMAs and other "creative" solutions rammed through the FCC allowed the consolidators to ramp up their march toward mediocrity from the late 80s onward until the floodgates opened with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

BTW, please do point us toward this marvelous station that you own/operate/oversee or whatever. We'd like to judge your fabulous product for ourselves, and we're willing to be impressed by your spectacular history of ratings success.

 

[TheBigA]

Actually, TSL has declined steadily since the 80s. You might want to check some actual facts for a change:

Those are national figures. If radio is really a local medium, then quoting national TSL figures are more useless than 6+ ratings.

Show me TSL on WHAM if you want to impress someone.

But as I've said many times, if TSL was already dropping in the 80s, before all the debt and VT and cutbacks, then obviously those things didn't cause it. What that TSL drop corresponds with is the over-licensing of the spectrum caused by Docket 80-90. Too many radio stations diluting the marketplace. Multiple stations competing in the same format, causing listeners to switch among several stations. Too much other media, and TV entering the music distribution business. That's what that graph shows.

 

[SirRoxalot]

How about if you show us anything - any study, any example - that conclusively proves that you're right?

Obviously, it's illegal to quote Arbitron's protected numbers for any specific station here, but you simply choose not to believe facts presented others anyway. Those of us who lived through the changes in radio over the last 30 years have a pretty good understanding of what happened. We also see on a local basis who bought into the "new" radio concepts, and who maintained quality programming over a longer period of time - and typically benefitted from it. We've seen everything from the Superstars format of the '70s to Jack come and go, maybe make a splash for a few books, then fade into oblivion.

 

[TheBigA]

How about if you show us anything - any study, any example - that conclusively proves that you're right?

If you don't want to believe me, you don't have to respond. Just ignore. I promise I won't be insulted.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Not to worry. We'll just value your comments according to your track record and ability to back up your POV.