S.F. Talk Ratings in 1997

[Gregg]

I was looking through some old Radio & Records magazines in my closet and found this article by Talk columnist John Mainelli. It's dated Jan. 31, 1997.

KGO is #1 with nearly a seven share in San Francisco. It's also the #1 station 25-54. All-News KCBS is #2 overall and in the 25-54 race, it ranks seventh. KNBR, which was doing Sports talk most of the day but also aired Rush Limbaugh from 9am - Noon was #6 in the market and #8 in among 25-54 listeners. Conservative Talk KSFO was #16 in the 25-54 race.

Today, KGO is #7 overall but David Eduardo tells us it has fallen to #20 in the 25-54 demo. How does a station that basically has changed little in those last 14 years fall so far? In only a little over a decade, the 25-54 crowd has gone from liking KGO so much it was their favorite station to hating it so much that nearly all other full power stations beat it?

Is KGO at fault or are listeners now just dumber? In 1997 the largest number of middle-aged adults wanted an intelligent discussion of the issues of the day with smart talk hosts. Now in 2011, they'd prefer listening to Lady Gaga and Beyonce? They want to avoid smart talk and informed hosts like the plague?

We can fault KGO for not keeping up with current trends. But we can't fault it for being what it has been for several decades. Ronn Owens, Gil Gross and Gene Burns didn't suddenly get boring or distracted. Could today's adult listeners be simply chasing their kids' music, trying to pretend they're still hip and young, and foresaking their roles as informed citizens?



Gregg
[email protected]

 

[DavidKaye]

Today, KGO is #7 overall but David Eduardo tells us it has fallen to #20 in the 25-54 demo. How does a station that basically has changed little in those last 14 years fall so far?

Because the same hosts are doing the same thing over and over but now it's 14 years later. This is not set in stone, of course, but as a trend, older people like nostalgia. They want the same thing over and over. Younger people want fresh things. But think about the KGO talkshow hosts. They were saying the same things over and over. Gene Burns was always talking about "issues of the day" and always promoting John Rothmann's shift. Rothmann was always talking about Wendell Wilkie and Dwight Eisenhower. Ray Taliaferro was always saying he was coming from the ABC studios on the waterfront in San Francisco and saying that if there's something "we should be talking about, thinking about or doing something about...."

It didn't matter if the topic would change, they'd all intro with the same lines over and over again as if they were reading 20-year old scripts. And the problem was that the topics didn't change. They were always going on about politics, always doing the same take on the issues. Nothing was the least bit fresh.

In 1997 the largest number of middle-aged adults wanted an intelligent discussion of the issues of the day with smart talk hosts.

This is why they've moved over in droves to KQED-FM and are listening to Michael Krasny's Forum and Talk of the Nation. They want intelligent, fresh talk, and that's what they're getting from KQED.

Now in 2011, they'd prefer listening to Lady Gaga and Beyonce?

Lady Gaga is a phenomenal pianist and singer. Even Tony Bennett says that.

 

[FightingIrish]

Don't forget PPM. KGO slid immediately once the new methodology came into play.

And 25-54 then would be roughly 40-70 now.

 

[recto101]

I started listening to KGO-AM 810 when Pete Wilson had a talk show from 2pm-4pm from 2000-2007
This was when Pete was about to leave KRON4 for KGO ABC7 to anchor the news. I liked his show till the end in 2007 when he left us. Around the time between the death of Pete Wilson to Bernie Ward's Child Porn scandal Citadel took over the ABC O&O radio stations but I stopped listening to KGO daily and left for KCBS 106.9 in 2008 and KALW 91.7/ KPFA 94.1 and KQED 88.5 in 2008 on FM. I occasionaly listen to KGO only when ABC7's Brian Copeland and KOFY TV 20 James Gabbert did fill ins but it stopped being a daily habit for me ever since.

 

[1069_KIFR]

I started listening to KGO-AM 810 when Pete Wilson had a talk show from 2pm-4pm from 2000-2007
This was when Pete was about to leave KRON4 for KGO ABC7 to anchor the news. I liked his show till the end in 2007 when he left us. Around the time between the death of Pete Wilson to Bernie Ward's Child Porn scandal Citadel took over the ABC O&O radio stations but I stopped listening to KGO daily and left for KCBS 106.9 in 2008 and KALW 91.7/ KPFA 94.1 and KQED 88.5 in 2008 on FM. I occasionaly listen to KGO only when ABC7's Brian Copeland and KOFY TV 20 James Gabbert did fill ins but it stopped being a daily habit for me ever since.

Very nicely stated. That could sound like many, many others' reason for tuning out KGO.

 

[davideduardo]

How does a station that basically has changed little in those last 14 years fall so far? In only a little over a decade, the 25-54 crowd has gone from liking KGO so much it was their favorite station to hating it so much that nearly all other full power stations beat it?

First, KGO is AM. Few under 55 have an interest in listening to AM (unless there is no choice, like some play by play). KCBS realized that the news format had 35-54 appeal, but 35-54's were not likely to use AM.

Second, the 35-54's of 15 years ago are all over 50 now, and three-quarters are now out of the sales demos. the new 35-54's did not grow up on AM.

And third, the PPM hit KGO hard. They had recognition and familiarity, but the PPM show usage was much less than reported in the diary. I'm not going to get into programming that aged with the listeners, as David K and recto have both made good comments on the subject.

That glass is not "half full."

 

[LKellerIII]

Speaking only for myself: In '97, I was 45 (in that prized demo), and still listened to KGO, though not as much as I did in the 80s (in my 30s). I've rarely listened since about 2000 (age 48). Looking back, I think 2 things happened:

1. I got bored with KGO, and Talk radio in general.

2. I re-discovered NPR, which had bored me when I was younger.

 

[oaktree]

As Bob Dylan said "The times - they are a'changin'."

The media landscape was so vastly different in 1997 than it is today. AM radio is now 14 years older and not being "discovered" or cared for by "today's" 25-54 year olds who grew up listening to FM. AM was "their parent's station" and very unhip and uncool. Forget the 44+ audience, too. When they were born, from 1966 to 1970, they were too young to care and were part of the music evolvement to FM by the time 1972 - 75 came around. Today's 35 year old was born part of the FM generation.

Then, the 18-34s then are are now 41-70. They, too, grew up more in the FM start-up and more ... and now, the over 55+ doesn't matter, according to advertisers and agencies.

On top of that, look at the technology over the last 19 years that has had a great effect on all demos ... personal computers, cell phones, satellite radio, satellite TV, iPods, iPhones, etc ... a much greater and "hands on" media source. CD's, which are so passe' now were already 7 years old in 1991 and cassettes were already becoming as rare as vinyl records.

When things don't change to reflect the growth of a target demo, and a station hangs on too long to what they have with the same people ... things start to go downhill, fast.

Rating measurement from diary (which was a crap shoot game of "remembering" what was heard or making it up put a crimp in the style of a lot of stations. They got lazy as long as the numbers were good. When PPM came alone, it has nothing to do with "listening" ... it's about the little box "hearing" an encoded signal. It doesn't mean that the person wearing the PPM is listening at all. The older the "sound" and the small distribution of the PPM ... the harder it is to bank on a desirable sales demo. The more current the market, the more active the listener and the PPM killed Smooth Jazz, Progressive Talk, Country (in the Bay Area and elsewhere,) and now is eating away at Mainstream Talk. What next, Classic Rock? Oldies? Classic Hits? If the market doesn't move with the current 25-54 ... it will become lost in the shuffle.

Not many advertisers are buying the demo that still likes to hear "Blueberry Hill" once in awhile. Or pre-63 hits. And now ... even the 70s.

In KGO's case ... it was about heritage, with little to legacy. Legacy only works when you keep current with the trends of what your audience is doing. KGO did ... but focussed on what they were (heritage.) That's when you lose.

ABC selling KGO-FM didn't help. Citadel not buying a market covering FM didn't help. And now Cumulus has a choice ... play Mickey Mouse with a "hybrid" high wattage AM format or blow up one of its two FM's in the market.

Having 50-gallons of power, like KGO, means nothing if the "wrong" sellable audience is listening and half of that audience has never experienced AM radio. And therein lies the problem.

KGO's next highest rating level will be when the "Big One" happens. People will flock to it, as they have in the past because KGO has long been "the earthquake station" as has "KCBS" ... but in a different way. The edge goes to KCBS at this point, already locked in with a market covering FM.

As for KKGN ... evening shifting the call letters from 960 to 910 ... won't matter. People are not so call letter conscious today as before. They don't need to be with PPM. Putting the KNEW calls or KKSF-am, or whatever -- same thing.

KKGN only has a .2 share now and maybe 75,000 listeners, period. Breakout the selling demo of 25-54 and you can bet that of the total listeners, KKGN isn't doing so well, even if the majority of it's 75,000 listeners was in the demo. KNEW, now, isn't doing much better with a .6 share and 100,000 more listeners. The P1 base just isn't there nor is there growth.

Yes, there will be a big hue and cry when Gene, John and maybe even Ray join up with the syndicated morning team, Stephanie Miller and Randi Rhodes ... with Tom Hartmann and Mike Malloy thrown in to round out the schedule. But as has been proven ... syndication isn't going to trump "live and local" and a mix of the two in the main dayparts does not make for "must hear" programming. Plus ... it is Clear Channel.

If Mickey Luckoff gets the reins in an equity position ... things might change quite a bit. But it's 20,000 watts day, one fourth that at night. Even worse on 960 with a 5000 watt directional fighting three 50,000 watters (including KNBR).

David Eduardo is more than right. He's spot-on. And not one in the demo, either ...

I do think that if Clear Channel takes the plunge, seriously ... it will have to blow up an FM to expand the format to younger demos who still won't listen to an AM radio station. Still ... will older hosts be able to overcome that?

The times ... they are a'changin' ... with more to come. Thanks for reading - JB

 

[Gregg]

I'm confused when I hear young people won't flip the AM-FM switch. The people who made KGO #1 25-54 in 1997 knew about FM as well as AM. They'd switched their radios to FM when they wanted music. Then when they wanted news or talk, they'd switch to AM. It's just a simple switch.

So in 1997 we knew how to switch our radios but in 2011 young adults don't know about the AM-FM switch? They know how to work every new electronic device under the sun, but flipping that AM-FM switch is beyond their comprehension?

And as for the age and heritage of KGO's talk hosts, is the suggestion they should have been fired after a decade on the air? So KGO's fate would have been better if there was a 40-something who had replaced Gene Burns and a 40-something who had replaced Ronn Owens?

Are some of you really saying KQED has made KGO obsolete? LA has two NPR FM Talk stations. Why hasn't KPCC or KCRW made KFI obsolete? Why hasn't WBEZ made WGN or WLS obsolete in Chicago? Besides, KQED was around in 1997. It wasn't rated back then, or at least not included when the ratings were made public. So we can't say what KQED's ratings were like 14 years ago. But why was KGO able to co-exist with KQED in 1997 but not now? I'm sure KQED was running All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Forum, Talk of the Nation, etc. in 1997.



Gregg
[email protected]

 

[michael hagerty]

Actually, the article is just six weeks from being 15 years old. 1997 is to now as 1982 was to 1997. But were we surprised in 1997 that KFRC was no longer a huge hit music station?

Back up 15 more years. That's 1967. Were we surprised in 1982 that KYA was no longer The Boss of the Bay and Tom Campbell wasn't still loaning his Corvette to listeners?

Time marches on. And it's not that today's adults don't know how to work the AM/FM switch, it's that they haven't seen a need to. AM to them is like FM was to Boomers before Tom Donahue and KMPX...just a bunch of stuff for old people. Why bother?

 

[DavidKaye]

Rating measurement from diary (which was a crap shoot game of "remembering" what was heard or making it up put a crimp in the style of a lot of stations. They got lazy as long as the numbers were good. When PPM came alone, it has nothing to do with "listening" ... it's about the little box "hearing" an encoded signal. It doesn't mean that the person wearing the PPM is listening at all. The older the "sound" and the small distribution of the PPM ...

I may be mistaken on the numbers but I believe the diary distribution was around 700 or 750 persons, but the PPMs are distributed to about 2000 or maybe 2200 people, making the sampling large and more accurate. Also, if I were buying time I'd be more confident in my buy if I were buying based on PPM rather than diaries, given the large numbers of people who reported non-existent callsigns and DJs who had long gone. I'd much rather take a chance on a PPM that "hears" what the listener is supposedly hearing. And no, the listener can't just leave the PPM sitting somewhere. The device tracks movement, and won't register listening unless it moves from time to time. So, propping it up against a radio tuned to KGO isn't going to get them any ratings.

 

[DavidKaye]

I'm confused when I hear young people won't flip the AM-FM switch. The people who made KGO #1 25-54 in 1997 knew about FM as well as AM. They'd switched their radios to FM when they wanted music. Then when they wanted news or talk, they'd switch to AM. It's just a simple switch.

AM doesn't sound very good. It's not the fault of the transmission, it's the limitation of the radio. Even great AM radios don't sound good when you're used to hearing FM, CDs, and iPods.

There's a bar in San Francisco called the Attic where a DJ plays old 78s on a turntable. He does it during cocktail hour one weeknight a week. It's considered cool to hang out and listen and have a drink. Why doesn't the bar have this guy on weekend nights when there's a big crowd? Because they'd drive away customers! I'm saying it's one thing to go retro for chic sake, but it's something else to have it as your mainstay. AM radio is like that. It was cool to hear the big band swing stuff a decade ago on KABL 960. But it was a fad; it was chic for a day. It wasn't mainstream. AM will never be mainstream again.

Are some of you really saying KQED has made KGO obsolete? LA has two NPR FM Talk stations. Why hasn't KPCC or KCRW made KFI obsolete? Why hasn't WBEZ made WGN or WLS obsolete in Chicago?

But KCRW does have the more desired demographics than KFI does. KCRW is still on the upswing and KFI isn't. I can't speak to WBEZ versus Chicago AMs, but I suspect it's the same there as well.

Besides, KQED was around in 1997. It wasn't rated back then, or at least not included when the ratings were made public. So we can't say what KQED's ratings were like 14 years ago. But why was KGO able to co-exist with KQED in 1997 but not now? I'm sure KQED was running All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Forum, Talk of the Nation, etc. in 1997.

In the interim KQED and NPR have brought in consultants to tweak their formats. Also, Arbitron did measure the non-comm stations then, but they weren't part of the published reports sent to advertisers and agencies. Somewhere in my collection I believe I still have the breakout of non-comms commissioned by NPR for the SF market circa 1996 or so. Back in 1997 KQED wasn't doing badly at all.

In fact, I used the data from a 1996 breakout to testify before the SF Unified School District, which was being pressured to sell KALW. I showed that even with its tiny 1900 watt signal, KALW had significant ratings within SF. I also pointed out the fallacy of the diaries in underreporting KALW listenership by about 20% during morning drive.

 

[MC]

Also a contributing factor, gas prices and housing costs. In 1997, people would run long commutes to get to areas where housing was cheaper. So someone would drive from Livermore, Manteca, Stockton, etc. to get to the Bay Area. Gas was $1.50. Many of those commuters listened to talk radio in the car for the traffic etc. Now surburbs like Stockton are poor and housing there is in the tank. Better off people are in the City and don't have a long commute.

 

[LKellerIII]

I'm confused when I hear young people won't flip the AM-FM switch. The people who made KGO #1 25-54 in 1997 knew about FM as well as AM. They'd switched their radios to FM when they wanted music. Then when they wanted news or talk, they'd switch to AM. It's just a simple switch.

AM doesn't sound very good. It's not the fault of the transmission, it's the limitation of the radio. Even great AM radios don't sound good when you're used to hearing FM, CDs, and iPods.

That's the bottom line. I began listening to FM almost exclusively for music - almost 40 years ago, but being a baby-boomer, I also listened to news and talk on AM for many years.

There are a few radio pros posting on these boards that insist AM sound (at least before the evil IBOC 'ruined it') is as good as FM sound, or at least had the potential. I know nothing about the science of sound, but I know what my ears tell me. I remember listening to demonstrations of AM stereo - probably 30 + years ago, and being disappointed. To me, it sounded like low fidelity stereo.

I guess fidelity isn't as important for talk and news, but it still counts for something. Try listening to KCBS on AM, then flip it to 106.9. The only advantage to 740 AM is signal - you can get KCBS in outlying areas where the 106.9 signal is weak, or non-existent.

 

[DavidKaye]

There are a few radio pros posting on these boards that insist AM sound (at least before the evil IBOC 'ruined it') is as good as FM sound, or at least had the potential. I know nothing about the science of sound, but I know what my ears tell me. I remember listening to demonstrations of AM stereo - probably 30 + years ago, and being disappointed. To me, it sounded like low fidelity stereo.

AM transmitters can pass high fidelity. You go next to KGO's transmitter with a crystal set piped into a high quality amplifier and you'll be stunned at how good the station sounds. But AM reception is a sensitivity versus selectivity issues. The literal width of the signal spreads out depending on the frequency of the audio being broadcast. AM stations are (generally) allowed to broadcast a signal that's 30kHz wide, meaning that they can pass up to 15kHz audio. That's fine, but that means a high fidelity radio tuning in KGO would tune from 780 to 840 in order to get that hi-fi signal. Well, there's a station in Reno on 780, stations in Eureka and LA on 790, and stations on 820 and 830 (I think Grass Valley), so radios by necessity limit their response to 5kHz, meaning a 10kHz bandwidth in order to keep from hearing multiple signals at once.

A crystal set has little to no selectivity at all, and since its reception is limited to what is nearby, pulling in KGO in hi-fi is excellent. But move that crystal set across the bay or further north and you'll be pulling in KNBR, KFAX, and KTCT all at once. No good.

FM suffers no such limitation due to the nature of the way FM works. Instead, stations are limited by the loudness they can produce, not the frequency. Whole different animal.

 

[SFStatic]

Re David's diary sample figure...nope. The diary sample was somewhere around 3 times what the PPM sample is. the PPM sample runs about 2300-2400 meters (net). The diary did use recall, and tended to get people who wrote in their favorites, the so-called 'beauty contest,' but the PPM measures what the meter hears in the vicinity of the ears of the panelist, not necessarily what the panelist is listening to. If you spend 10 minutes in a store, and they're playing KOIT, KOIT gets credit, even if the panelist hates KOIT and would never listen to it. All measurement systems have their biases and flaws.

 

[DavidKaye]

If you spend 10 minutes in a store, and they're playing KOIT, KOIT gets credit, even if the panelist hates KOIT and would never listen to it. All measurement systems have their biases and flaws.

But that really doesn't matter, does it? If the person is hearing KOIT they are also hearing the ads on KOIT and they will be influenced by them as much or as little as if they heard the ads on a station they liked. Given that Arbitron ratings are for the benefit of advertisers, I see no sampling problem due to people carrying the PPM units into stores with them.

 

[michael hagerty]

If you spend 10 minutes in a store, and they're playing KOIT, KOIT gets credit, even if the panelist hates KOIT and would never listen to it. All measurement systems have their biases and flaws.

But that really doesn't matter, does it? If the person is hearing KOIT they are also hearing the ads on KOIT and they will be influenced by them as much or as little as if they heard the ads on a station they liked. Given that Arbitron ratings are for the benefit of advertisers, I see no sampling problem due to people carrying the PPM units into stores with them.

Exactly. Advertising isn't done to reward what people say are their favorite radio stations. They want impressions.

Let's say you listen to KFOG driving to and from work every day. 15 minutes each way. But your office plays KOIT all day long and the deli where you spend your lunch hour every day is always playing KCBS.

Your favorite station may be KFOG, but you are 2 times more exposed to KCBS and its advertisers and 16 times more exposed to KOIT and theirs. And that's far more relevant information to an advertiser than which station you prefer to listen to.

 

[SFStatic]

Having been both a broadcaster and a merchant who purchased broadcast time, I can say that someone in a store where a station is played (that they don't like and aren't really paying attention to) hearing my ad is totally worthless to me as a merchant. I suppose this is the difference between a merchant and and ad agency who gets all warm and fuzzy about ad 'impressions.' What you really want is for people to be listening a bit more actively so you can hit those who will come in and buy your products.

 

[michael hagerty]

Having been both a broadcaster and a merchant who purchased broadcast time, I can say that someone in a store where a station is played (that they don't like and aren't really paying attention to) hearing my ad is totally worthless to me as a merchant. I suppose this is the difference between a merchant and and ad agency who gets all warm and fuzzy about ad 'impressions.' What you really want is for people to be listening a bit more actively so you can hit those who will come in and buy your products.

Yes and no. Depending on how an ad is crafted, or the needs and wants of the passive listener, an ad (especially one they don't hear constantly on their station of choice) can be either a conscious or subconscious motivator to visit a store, restaurant or hotel, use a service or buy a product.