Rochester summer ratings...the top 5 12+ ranked

[Bob1370]

Modern country WBEE returns to the top of the Rochester 12+ rankings with a double digit share. Urban contemporary WDKX comes in a close second, just fractionally under a 10 share 12+ and dominating 12-34, as it has been for some time. CHR station WPXY had its strongest book in a while, finishing in third place 12+, while WHAM fell to fourth with a 6.4--possibly its lowest share of audience in its 90 year history. Buzz 98.9 rounds out the top 5.

All this is good news for Entercom, which owns three of the top five, and the Langston family, which founded and still runs WDKX. It's not so good news for Clear Channel, which has relied on WHAM as anchor for its cluster and contender for market leadership (with additional help from its other properties), or Stephens, which used to be able to rely on Warm 101.3 to make a top 5 showing but didn't get there this time around. Does the poor WHAM showing signify its brand (heavily leaning on Rush Limbaugh and other like-minded local and syndicated hosts) is wearing out or its core aging out? It'll be interesting to see how, or if, they react...

Source for these numbers; Arbitron as reported by AllAccess.

 

[yugoidar]

WHAM/WSYR-Syracuse Program Director, Jason Furst, may be dodging a bullet having just been announced as the new Program Director of WBT in Charlotte effective later this month.

WBT, by the way, is another legendary 50,000 watt station that has apparently been suffering from rather anemic ratings recently.

 

[SirRoxalot]

WHAM's decline in programming quality is pretty well documented on this board.

http://radiodiscussions.com/smf/index.php?topic=209990.0

Sooner or later, it comes back to bite you in the ass. Cut live, local news, and people stop coming to you for it - not just during the less well attended hours, but during drive time as well. Clear Channel is one of the companies that still doesn't get the idea that you can't cut your way to prosperity. Cut sales people, sales decline. Cut talent, programming declines, and audiences decline. Audiences decline, and revenue declines, which leads to another round of cuts. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Kudos to WBEE, but are they really "modern country"? I thought that they were trying to be all things country to all people country.

 

[Ed Trefzger]

WHAM's decline in programming quality is pretty well documented on this board.

http://radiodiscussions.com/smf/index.php?topic=209990.0

Sooner or later, it comes back to bite you in the ass. Cut live, local news, and people stop coming to you for it - not just during the less well attended hours, but during drive time as well.

I don't disagree about Clear Channel cutting back and product deteriorating on radio in general ... but I read comments on this board all the time that make me wonder if people ever take the time to listen to the stations they comment (or in some cases pontificate) about. From 5 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays, WHAM's only non-live, non-local hours are from 1 to 4 when Limbaugh is on. That's 12 hours of live and local. The outgoing PD actually increased the local air time by two hours back in January by dropping Michael Savage, moving Glenn Beck to late nights, giving Lonsberry an extra hour and adding a second live news hour from 4 to 5 p.m. The drop in ratings has coincided with the increase in local hours. If live and local alone were the panacea, wouldn't you have seen the ratings increase?

 

[therealjm12]

I know WLGZ doesn't buy the book (but should), so they are not reported. I wonder if the are cutting into WRRM's numbers?

 

[SirRoxalot]

There's a lag time between cuts and their effect on the audience. WHAM has seen significant cuts in personnel over the last couple of years, and it seems that the audience dissatisfaction is picking up steam. An extra hour of Lonsberry apparently isn't the answer, and another hour of live news is less interesting when you have so many fewer reporters to add breadth and depth.

 

[Ed Trefzger]

... and another hour of live news is less interesting when you have so many fewer reporters to add breadth and depth.

I rest my case.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

WHAM down 0.9 from Spring '12 and off 2.5 from Summer '11. http://www.allaccess.com/arbitron/q/market/101/rochester-ny Impressive. There are any number of theories, including the effect of Rush Limbaugh airing in real time from noon to 3 on 107.7 simulcasting WBEN. Also possibly contributing to WHAM's loss, one PD serving two radio stations. News-talk is a high maintenance format, requiring constant attention and coaching. Did WYSL and/or WXXI pick up shares?

 

[SirRoxalot]

... and another hour of live news is less interesting when you have so many fewer reporters to add breadth and depth.

I rest my case.

Just what is your "case", Ed? WHAM added a couple of local hours. Did they add any new people to generate new content, or are they just either repeating the same content over, or spreading it over a longer period of time? I Lonsberry adding a new subject for discussion in his additional hour, with new guests and new callers, or just beating his daily horse more thoroughly?

Reducing staff, then adding hours to the local schedule doesn't make the programming more compelling or informative. Seems to me that's what WHAM has done over the last few years.

 

[therealjm12]

There are any number of theories, including the effect of Rush Limbaugh airing in real time from noon to 3 on 107.7 simulcasting WBEN

It has been brought up on this board before that maybe part of Entercom's strategy of putting WBEN on 107.7 was to take listeners and points away from WHAM. That would make WBEE look stronger in Rochester.

 

[SirRoxalot]

If the WBEN/107.7 simulcast was cutting into WHAM's share, wouldn't it show up in the book?

 

[Bob1370]

"If the WBEN/107.7 simulcast was cutting into WHAM's share, wouldn't it show up in the book?"

Not necessarily, at least not in the reports we see. The way it works with Arbitron these days, you have to buy the whole package including numbers for all stations reported in your TSA. or else some stations, even out-of-market stations you own, can't be reported within a market without running afoul of Arbitron's contracts. 107.7 gets reported in Buffalo as a simulcast with WBEN-AM 930 (and only the folks at Entercom get the additional data that allows them to tease out and separate people listening on AM from those on FM). They probably don't buy reports of Buffalo stations at all for the Rochester survey, so they can't report publicly any numbers they get for WLKK (or WBEN for that matter) in the Rochester TSA, just the numbers for their Rochester cluster.

However, Entercom gets all the data and gets a chance to look at all the raw diary numbers for internal use, so they know what (if any) impact they're having on WHAM in the western half of the market where WLKK's signal is strong, even if they can't discuss it publicly or share the info with clients without violating their contract. So does Clear Channel, for that matter.

Only the ones who don't buy the book for their stations at all don't get to see the numbers--which means some stations with significant listenership, like Legends 102.7, won't see or can't quote numbers. But that's another story...

 

[Element9]

Missing from the discussion about WHAM's decline: the programming. The product over the years has been watered down so badly, it's lost its luster. This goes beyond the debate over "more local vs. less satellite delivered programming." AM talk radio isn't attracting younger listeners and by younger, it's not meant 50-64. Demos under 50 aren't attracted to the SOP of angry old white guys and their repeat-offender-usual-suspects callers yammering about politics (progressive or republican), over and over and over. Sports-talk radio, the last foothold of younger demos, is moving to FM. NPR also knows it's facing demographic issues with its programming. So owners/operators of AM stations, particularly medium and small market stand-alones, are facing a major concern. What's the exit strategy? Who'll buy your Smith-Corona at premium prices? Where is the next wave of consumers of what's being sold on the air, let alone potential buyers of the facilities?

 

[benson86]

In larger markets with significant foreign language populations, AM stations could move towards serving those populations. They have traditionally been served by brokered programming, etc. However in markets like Buffalo and Roachester, there are no groups large enough to permit a station to operate profitably. So, it's a big problem for them. Wish I knew the answer, I'd get rich!

 

[bmcglynn]

Missing from the discussion about WHAM's decline: the programming. The product over the years has been watered down so badly, it's lost its luster. This goes beyond the debate over "more local vs. less satellite delivered programming." AM talk radio isn't attracting younger listeners and by younger, it's not meant 50-64. Demos under 50 aren't attracted to the SOP of angry old white guys and their repeat-offender-usual-suspects callers yammering about politics (progressive or republican), over and over and over. Sports-talk radio, the last foothold of younger demos, is moving to FM. NPR also knows it's facing demographic issues with its programming. So owners/operators of AM stations, particularly medium and small market stand-alones, are facing a major concern. What's the exit strategy? Who'll buy your Smith-Corona at premium prices? Where is the next wave of consumers of what's being sold on the air, let alone potential buyers of the facilities?

It's been a consistent slide - almost 2 whole points in the last 4 quarters. At one point WHAM was king (as far as ratings were concerned). What's interesting is WPXY's and WRBX's surge. On the whole, CHR and Classic Hits stations are doing very well. CHR comes and goes in cycles, and right now there is a lot of strong Pop product coming out.

WYSL also must be taking a big chunk out of WHAM. Savage's lineup is stronger than ever - especially with Huckabee in the afternoon against Limbaugh. Add local talk with Nojay, and you have a very strong product.

No doubt the folks at Clear Channel are analyzing and sweating over what is happening here and other markets where traditional Limbaugh N/T formats are seeing declines.

Brian

 

[TheBigA]

Missing from the discussion about WHAM's decline: the programming.

Thank you. The situation in Rochester isn't isolated or unique. It's a problem facing AM news/talkers across the country, including WBEN. A huge drop for that station between spring and summer, even with an FM simulcast. Even the poster child for news talk AMs, KFI in LA, slipped from first to third. The problem is the programming. The radio audience is done with right wing political talk. Done. Over. Toast. No mas. It's a huge turn off to the larger talk audience. And while the media is trying to turn this election into a horse race, it's clear to see that nobody cares. What's worse is that the election is only undecided in a few battleground states, and New York isn't one of them. So you won't be seeing the candidates coming to Rochester to sway voters, which means no local angle.

As for staffing, I keep saying that radio isn't a federal jobs program. The only way your format can justify a staff increase is if it's attached to an increase in revenue, and you can't do that if the audience is getting smaller and older. You can't spend your way past bad programming. More reporters won't change the fact that the core programming is a turn off to most listeners, especially those in the money demo. There are simply way too many other places to get local news besides radio.

 

[Mark Giardina]

WYSL also must be taking a big chunk out of WHAM. Savage's lineup is stronger than ever - especially with Huckabee in the afternoon against Limbaugh. Add local talk with Nojay, and you have a very strong product.

Any numbers on how WYSL did in the latest book?

 

[GeorgeKramer]

What kind of numbers were Schopp & Bulldog getting in Rochester when their show was also aired there?

 

[SirRoxalot]

Just because the Presidential race isn't up for grabs in NY doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of local races of interest. Of course, Rush & other national talk shows won't be discussing those races, which makes it more important than ever that local hosts talk about local issues instead of simply parroting the national blather.

To do that, you need local hosts, access to the candidates, and local reporters and producers to create the content that a local host needs as backgrounder material. Unfortunately, local content has become weaker and weaker with the demise of local newspapers, as well as thinner ranks in radio and TV. There are a handfull of bloggers, but very few real reporters.

The bottom line is that radio simply doesn't put the money into programming and resources that it once did, and the content suffers as a result. Add competition from the web, and you have a recipe for decline. Radio is an entertainment medium. When the movies were threatened by big-screen TVs and surround sound, they spent MORE money on content to create product that was tailored for big-screen movie houses. Radio, when challenged, cut local content and costs, allowing national web-based services to compete more easily. Then they lament that radio is seen as being in decline.

 

[TheBigA]

The bottom line is that radio simply doesn't put the money into programming and resources that it once did, and the content suffers as a result.

Blah blah blah. Regardless of how the budgets have chaged, radio is putting more money into their content than the bloggers. The bloggers prove you can get an audience with no budget. What matters is the quality of the work. The people don't care how big the news budget is, or how many people there are on staff. They care about the results. If someone with no budget or staff generates better stuff, that's where the audience goes.