Sorry no HD availability in my truck! I will always be grateful for WFNX, WBCN, and WAAF.
-
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
Rock 92.9 To Bloomberg
- Thread starter lanceventa
- Start date
So you don’t want to be the MassMusicMan from Nantucket?
MassMusicMan
Banned
I can't. Radio's already sucking it.
Apparently this is mainly a Beasley problem. They're consolidating and cost cutting across the country.
Last edited:
it will be on am 1330 and 106.1 fm translator
Bite your tongue, good sir! I’ve been the recipient of a couple minor RF burns myself.
That being said, the times they are a-changing. The major radio corporations are letting go popular morning shows in the rock format and lots of others in non-drivetime slots at all kinds of stations. A leaner company has to be able to stay afloat against robust mobile streaming platforms and (apparently) free satellite radio.
My first job was a bit over 30 years ago delivering an afternoon newspaper. How many of those are left these days? Hell, how many were left in 1994?
The thing that stings about this is the fact that WBOS had the opening to go in a more mainstream/active rock direction. Beasley has several other heritage rockers, such as WMMR, WDHA, and WRIF in their portfolio that they could have used resources from (save the Detroit-based morning show!) Sure, WBOS doesn't have the heritage that the other mentioned stations have, but they could have built something great. Instead, they stuck with a safe classic rock playlist, had only one live jock on during weekdays, and had next to nothing in terms of local flavor. Yes, I'm sure every song played on 92.9 has been researched to death, but research can only get so far. Without actual interaction and a local presence, FM radio is doomed.
I'm not sure what the point is. They could have flipped it to smooth jazz and had the market to themselves. But what good is it if the programming does not attract the audience that advertisers want to reach? And, let's not forget about costs. Beasley is a for profit company. If this LMA is a surer path to profits, isn't it in their shareholders' best interest to pursue it?
But all these listeners in the advertiser-friendly age ranges are abandoning FM for non-local streaming music sources, with no DJs, no news, no local input at all, just lots of songs tailored to the tastes of the specific user or customized by the user himself or herself. What makes you think they'd come back to FM if you could talk to a disc jockey or hear the local weather forecast? That's exactly what the current generation to a good extent finds repugnant about radio.
The thing about WBOS is that in Boston, they already have a station with a hyper local focus - WBZ.
I'd wager Dave and Chuck was put on WBOS mainly to protect the mothership of Toucher and Rich/Hardy.
Nobody expects that the shows on their local NBC affiliate have to be local. People will still watch Jimmy Fallon (or whoever hosted the Tonight Show at the time) regardless because he has resources and access to the stars. But if NBC were run like a radio network, every affiliate would have its own version of the Tonight Show and it would be a dumb, expensive mess.
The only formats where locality matters are news talk - because the USA is politically decentralized - and sports, because of all the allegiances. And even then, regional syndication can work like with WEEI. My impression is that it was Toucher and Rich's internal issues that killed their syndication push across New England.
I feel like had they tried (plugging W295CF in Tampa doesn't count), they could've had a successful Spanish CHR/Tropical station on 92.9.
Define successful...
I haven't known many operators to intentionally tank one station to protect its more profitable station down the hall. Operators who feel they can't produce a successful alternative to their own programming find formats that don't compete.
Network radio has been around for decades. It's having the same problems luring sponsors that local radio and TV are having. TV networks have been demanding more reverse comp from local affiliates for years now. That's why CBS moved in Jacksonville and Indianapolis. They may not be hurting for ad revenue like the local TV stations, but they're not demanding that reverse comp because they're rolling in the dough. If CBS/Paramount gets sold to Skydance as expected, rumor is that Skydance wants the Paramount side only and will put CBS right back on the block.
News/talk has more syndication than most other formats. Talk radio, in general, targets more conservative listeners, and their views tend to be similar no matter where in the country they live. Marketing 101 states that you always segment the market. Talk radio goes after a more narrow segment of the market in some areas, but what plays in Boston and LA can play in Dallas/Ft. Worth just as easily and as well. Despite the blue state/red state talk, most Americans are far more likely to encounter someone of another political party in their neighborhood than someone of another race or ethnicity regardless of state of residence.
Boston barely has the demographics to support rimshot "Rumba 97.7" and the number of AM/translators running Spanish language programming. There is no revenue to be made putting a Spanish language brand on a full Class B signal.
That is standard operating procedure at many major clusters. WKTU exists at this point to protect Z100 and WLTW from a competitor. When CBS launched "92.3 Now", KTU moved closer to CHR to protect Z100. After 92.3 and WPLJ went away it has gone to Hot AC to prevent growth from WNEW.
Nobody said Beasley purposely tanked WBOS, but they for sure chose Classic Rock and the morning show to protect The Sports Hub. Greater Media and Beasley have done the opposite in Philadelphia where "97.5 The Fanatic" WPEN-FM exists simply to flank WMMR/WMGK against WIP.
Correct. Those would be examples of what I meant when I referred to a "successful alternative."
I may have misinterpreted what he was trying to say. All the talk of forcing a horrible morning show in this thread led me to think he was referring to running a poor product to keep someone better from going after The Sports Hub (or its listeners). That rarely happens in the real world, at least partially because, if no one is listening, it's not protecting anything. Plus, most people would rather make money in this business. Whatever the case, Beasley doesn't seem to think Rock 92.9 or Dave and Chuck the Freak are total losers since it intends to air basically the same programming minus the local talent on 1330/106.1.
For an AC example, see Hubbard's 100.3 in Chicago. It runs the company's Brooke and Jeffrey mostly to protect the mothership of WTMX's very popular local morning show. It's more profitable to syndicate in this case rather than run another local show.
Of course they're not total losers. They're a hugely popular heritage talent in their home market of Detroit. Running them in other markets is a bonus for Beasley. Saves them the trouble of running a local show.
Those people have access to a financial adviser, expert staff, and so much online news, data, and analysis, that they don't need Bloomberg radio to get the info they want or need.
Last edited:
Maybe, but this is about promoting the brand rather than going after Nielsen ratings.
Bloomberg gets a .4 in NYC, and a .8 in DC. I'm surprised they even buy the book.
The old business model of getting ratings to sell to advertisers is becoming obsolete.
I would be willing to carry a meter around for a year just to prove I never listened to Felger and Zolak.
I think that’s one reason, but it’s not near the top one. BROADcasting by definition is untargeted. Advertisers must pay to reach thousands of people they neither need nor want. It’s an inefficient method compared to what, say, Facebook can offer. And BTW, contrary to your premise which is very understandable due to your perspective, there are actually literally millions of NEW ads and advertisers now. That didn’t advertise electronically just 20 years ago due to this far more efficient marketing. Broadcast advertising IS hugely beneficial for advertisers seeking to pay for and reach MASS BROADcasting audiences. That is a minority of all businesses, the overwhelming majority of which are SMALL.
The other point about revenues/carriage fees is really interesting. The world has surely changed. I worked in Broadcast TV when we had to PAY to get carried on Cable to get better ratings. I mean —local TV has always been free with rabbit ears, still is—but the thinking was -more people would watch us with the convenience of a cable channel. Which is true. So we paid,
But the other side of the coin: we as broadcasters are providing CONTENT that the cable companies profit from—with subscriptions. In a world craving for content…content is king. So now cable pays broadcasters.
- Status