Bloggers don't have to generate revenue. Radio stations do. If you don't have content that people can't get elsewhere, you don't have an audience. No audience, no revenue. C'mon, even you can't dispute that.
-
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
Bloggers can create great content with no budget because they have no costs. Radio stations have very significant fixed costs. They have to offer something that the bloggers can't - like greater expertise, better writing, better access to sources, and more accurate information. If they don't, they won't be in business. It takes talent to create that content. Like many other industries, you have to invest money to create a product that will bring you a return. WHAM has reduced their investment in talent, and invested their remaining dollars in programming that's worn out its welcome. The slide in ratings is the result.
SirRoxalot said:
But suppose you have a situation where the audience doesn't want those things. They just want their own personal opinions confirmed by someone else. Or the audience for old style radio programming is well outside the advertiser's target demo. That's the situation we have now. The audience for right wing conservative talk has peaked. And there's not much that will get younger audiences to listen to AM Radio.
We are currently in a time where there is no premium on quality, as demonstrated by the programming that attracts the most audience, and spending lots of money on staff or resources doesn't guarantee ratings or profits. WHAM could double it's personnel budget, but that wouldn't lead to an increase in profits. It's pretty likely the numbers would stay exactly where they are or go down. Meanwhile, their current staff gets more expensive every year due to new contracts and increased benefits costs. You say they have "fixed costs," but operating costs are also increasing. They're running faster just to stand still. They could replace the programming with something else, but they'd have to start at zero again with audience and revenues. That would mean years of losses, with no promise for a profit. That's the future for WHAM.
The flaw in your arguement is that audiences have supported WHAM in the recent past when they had more staff, greater expertise, better writing, better access to sources, and more accurate information. You can theorize all you want based on 12+ numbers, but the demographics and dayparts really tell the story. Sorry that you're not privy to that information, and nobody can post it here without violating terms & conditions. Then again, you've rarely let facts get in the way of your POV.
SirRoxalot said:
So you're saying that the audience hasn't changed? And the media marketplace hasn't changed?
Audiences used to subscribe to newspapers too. They used to do lots of things they no longer do.
More staff doesn't equal greater expertise, better writing, better access to sources, or more accurate information. Maybe you can demonstrate how the current staff is inept and inaccurate.
I think what would improve WHAM's ratings would be to get more diaries into the hands of over-55 white men. But it wouldn't improve their revenues. The revenue situation for AM news/talkers is what it is. Hiring more staff won't change that.
Once again, you don't let facts get in the way of your opinion. The audience decline is recent, steep, and started after WHAM made significant cutbacks in staff. You can choose to not see that as cause-and-effect. You can also choose to be wrong.
It's not that the people left aren't trying, and aren't talented. It's that there aren't enough of them to provide the quality of programming that kept WHAM - a 50KW Clear Channel - at or near the top of the ratings heap for a very long time. Once again, since you're spouting generalities, and don't have access to the demos and dayparts, you don't know where the erosion is. Then again, you've repeatedly expressed the opionion that AM is dead, and radio as an industry is fading, despite plenty of examples to the contrary.
It's not that the people left aren't trying, and aren't talented. It's that there aren't enough of them to provide the quality of programming that kept WHAM - a 50KW Clear Channel - at or near the top of the ratings heap for a very long time. Once again, since you're spouting generalities, and don't have access to the demos and dayparts, you don't know where the erosion is. Then again, you've repeatedly expressed the opionion that AM is dead, and radio as an industry is fading, despite plenty of examples to the contrary.
SirRoxalot said:
It also corresponds with OTHER similar steep audience declines at other AM news/talkers in other markets, including WBEN.
The other issue is a decline in revenues for AM news/talkers. You can't hire more staff without money. AM news/talkers, especially those that focus on right wing negative talk, have been hit by a national advertising ban. This ban began around the same time as WHAM's ratings decline. Until AM news/talkers find alternative revenue sources, they will be forced to continue to cut back on staff.
SirRoxalot said:
AM is hurting, and one look at the number of AM stations in the Top 10 of ANY city will demonstrate that fact. I have never said that "radio as an industry is fading." My point is that the radio device as a platform is fading, and radio needs to be available on the devices people use. Radio still has dominance in cars, but portables are where radio has seen its greatest loss in the last five years. Hiring more staff for an AM news/talker will not change the fact that a technological revolution happened ten years ago.
SirRoxalot said:
Nor do you. Although you have live closer to the market, you haven't brought in any facts that prove your POV. You continue to bleat that more staff equals more revenue, and I have no reason to believe that. The folks at WYSL seem to be very happy, and I'm pretty sure their payroll is lower than WHAM's.
Actually, I do know where the erosion is, but I obviously can't post it here. You continue to bleat that "staffing doesn't matter", and I have no reason to believe that. I have plenty of evidence that cutting programming costs by letting people go costs more in revenue than you save.
The folks at WYSL are in Avon, rarely show up in the Rochester book, sell to local advertisers in their home market, and serve their own market, not Rochester. They are successful because they have owners who are involved in the station every day, know their market, and program to it. Their revenue isn't getting siphoned off by a large corporation with serious money troubles. Unlike Clear Channel, Radio Livingston Ltd. lives within its means, and doesn't have stupid amounts of debt hanging over their heads.
The folks at WYSL are in Avon, rarely show up in the Rochester book, sell to local advertisers in their home market, and serve their own market, not Rochester. They are successful because they have owners who are involved in the station every day, know their market, and program to it. Their revenue isn't getting siphoned off by a large corporation with serious money troubles. Unlike Clear Channel, Radio Livingston Ltd. lives within its means, and doesn't have stupid amounts of debt hanging over their heads.
SirRoxalot said:
Really? Post it here.
SirRoxalot said:
I have no reason to believe WHAM's revenues are getting "siphoned off by a large corporation." If you do, post it here.
You're the one wanting facts. So show me.
WHAM is being hurt by an advertising ban that is specifically targeting their best known local host. That is what's hurting their revenues, and consequently their ability to increase staff.
B
Bob1370
Guest
"I have plenty of evidence that cutting programming costs by letting people go costs more in revenue than you save"
And for those who doubt that proposition, let me suggest a visit to the ratings pages at allaccess.com and you'll find all the evidence you need...because, after all, ratings do correlate directly with revenue...
And for those who doubt that proposition, let me suggest a visit to the ratings pages at allaccess.com and you'll find all the evidence you need...because, after all, ratings do correlate directly with revenue...
SirRoxalot said:
I'm with you on most of this...except the "serve their own market, not Rochester." Last I checked, the lead branding on WYSL is "FM Newstalk 92.1," and that is most definitely a Monroe County signal, not Avon/Livingston.
Having been around back at the very beginning of WYSL, more than 25 years ago (yikes!), I recall when it really was focused entirely on Livingston County. It was great programming, and a great service to an area that hadn't been much served by radio, but it was an area that also wasn't quite big enough or far enough away from Rochester to sustain what Bob was trying to do there.
Bob1370 said:
My point is that the staffing is not what caused the drop in ratings. Because, as I said, there has been an equal ratings drop at similar AM news talkers around the country, including WBEN. Those other stations didn't cut staff.
But as we've learned with Beautiful Music stations, it's possible to have a top-rated radio station drop a format because the ratings didn't attract appropriate revenue due to aging demographics. That too is an issue with AM news/talkers. Except perhaps those funded directly by the public, like your station.
My station? You think I work for NPR? Hahahaha. As usual, WRONG.
- Status