• 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

Sacramento VS. San Fran. (Who's Better)

A

apco25

Guest
As I was driving my rental vehicle for 2 weeks, I was also without access of a satellite radio, which meant welcome back to the world of terrestrial radio.
As I was driving getting an update of what's been happening since the last time I listened roughly 6-8 months ago....I seen noticable improvement especially one market from another and a few stations.
The improvements pretty much all from believe it or not Sacramento. 26th market versus no. 4, it's a disgrace.
Sacramento seems to have every main genre covered , (it's not perfect), but much more then San Fran. The Bay Area seems to be missing this and that or it's not up to par with what the capital city provides.
One of the biggest improvements is the oldies station. For many years KFRC always had a more professional sound then COOL. Cool seem to sound alittle too laid back and their music rotation seemed alittle all over the place. Sometimes too folksy. Another problem the over yuk yuk yuk yuk morning show with comedians that were not funny, and the mornings sounded off base with the oldies.
It's changed for the better. The music sounds tighter, more polished, a bit more upbeat. Even some oh wows! weekends sounding better. Yes one of the reason is the increasing 70's and early 80's and their not afraid to put in Journey and Boston, disco, even though they could use alittle more R&B like New York City's -"I'm Doin Fine Now", Doctor's Orders- Carol Douglass, "You Little trustmaker"- Tymes, but a noticable improvement over KFRC which still has the same old 300 researched playlists, gossip, plateau programming.
Classic rock the The Eagle is one of the better classic rock stations in the country. It's about as good as XM's Top tracks, except it has commercials. They seem to stay in the trend of everything, but it's now time to add "Winds of Change"- Scorpions, Saigon Kick, Damn Yankees, and it shocked me when I heard the Electric Prunes. Let's say just Sacramento 2 Bay Area 0.
Yes the 80's station surprised me, (even though it may not be around much longer,) it still helped add another pre-set to the radio. They lean toward the Living In the Oblivion (CD set) direction, but hey if you move down to 92.1, it wouldn't hurt to throw in a Debbie Gibson hit or two. No 80's in the Bay.
Sac 3 San fran.0.
V101. It's about he same in the Bay Area, They sound good at times and sometimes not as good. They sometimes go too 80's -90's or at times too recent. Not enough 70's.
They have a good Sunday night show. I know both stations are owned by the same. Let's give it a tie.
AC, Y92. Another improvement. They sounded bland, and focused more on their personality then their music, but lately as Star sounds the same as they did in 95', Y92 has picked up the pace.
Bob, has definetly added more variety to the dial, but the signal is bad. (But who knows how longer their going to be around. Which will only degrade the increasing variety of Sacramento radio.
The Zone has 90's and now. I here more Now. Their too safe on their 90's. At times I noticed I have the station on without ever changing the dial, and then at times I can't hold on too it more then 5 or so minutes. They need to be more broad with their 90's if their going to plug themselves 90's and Now.
They sound better then Alice, which listening over their it's amazing the same jocks are on since it started. But they sound worn out, defeated , tired, can't get past that 1.9. I do listen to them the most in the Bay Area as well as KFRC, and it just goes to show why Sacramento has become a better market.
And plus Sac has a CHR, S.F. doesn't. It's not perfect but what Top 40 is today. As long as you have 50 Cents on their, it may get them ratings, but now you know why are school grades are down and we can't win a war. It's not the End's fault, it's the music industries.
Let's put it this way.... I have had time's where I can't fill my pre-set dials in the Bay Area. I had times where I can only find 4 worth setting. Sacramento seems to have more formats, selections, and improvements, over the Bay Area which is the 4th biggest market. Yes , i'm sure it's better for spanish, asian, secondary formats if anyone listens, but otherwise it looks like the Capital City seems to be more aware of the Xm's,Ipods, etc. that's coming then San Fran.
 
> Yes one of the reason is the increasing
> 70's and early 80's and their not afraid to put in Journey
> and Boston, disco, even though they could use alittle more
> R&B like New York City's -"I'm Doin Fine Now", Doctor's
> Orders- Carol Douglass, "You Little trustmaker"- Tymes, but
> a noticable improvement over KFRC which still has the same
> old 300 researched playlists, gossip, plateau programming.

As much as I like all three of your examples, here are where they peaked on the Billboard Hot 100 when they were current:

I'm Doin' Fine Now - #17
Doctor's Orders - #11
You Little Trustmaker - #12

Outside of markets with a very high Urban AC potential, those songs simply don't even get considered for research. Very few songs outside the top 10 do anymore.

(Thankfully, I have all three of those songs on CD.)
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
"As I was driving my rental vehicle for 2 weeks, I was also without access of a satellite radio, which meant welcome back to the world of terrestrial radio."

That statement is more of an indictment than any observation you may have about radio in San Francisco and Sacramento.
It appears you've already decided who is better: satellite.
 
> "As I was driving my rental vehicle for 2 weeks, I was also
> without access of a satellite radio, which meant welcome
> back to the world of terrestrial radio."
>
> That statement is more of an indictment than any observation
> you may have about radio in San Francisco and Sacramento.
> It appears you've already decided who is better:
> satellite.
>

Your Right.
1.XM
2.Sacramento
3.San Fran.
 
> > "As I was driving my rental vehicle for 2 weeks, I was
> also
> > without access of a satellite radio, which meant welcome
> > back to the world of terrestrial radio."
> >
> > That statement is more of an indictment than any
> observation
> > you may have about radio in San Francisco and Sacramento.
> > It appears you've already decided who is better:
> > satellite.
> >
>
> Your Right.
> 1.XM
> 2.Sacramento
> 3.San Fran.

Then maybe I should just go ahead and kill this thread?
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
> > > "As I was driving my rental vehicle for 2 weeks, I was
> > also
> > > without access of a satellite radio, which meant welcome
>
> > > back to the world of terrestrial radio."
> > >
> > > That statement is more of an indictment than any
> > observation
> > > you may have about radio in San Francisco and
> Sacramento.
> > > It appears you've already decided who is better:
> > > satellite.
> > >
> >
> > Your Right.
> > 1.XM
> > 2.Sacramento
> > 3.San Fran.
>
> Then maybe I should just go ahead and kill this thread?
>

Why kill this thread? The main topic is Who's better? San Fran. or Sacramento?
I just happened to be without another medium I most usually listen to make this comparison or observation. But what does this have to do with satellite radio.
Previous person wants to put words or thoughts that I already made up my mind, I'm not going to argue about it? Why? That wasn't what's threads about.
 
> Why kill this thread? The main topic is Who's better? San
> Fran. or Sacramento?
> I just happened to be without another medium I most usually
> listen to make this comparison or observation. But what does
> this have to do with satellite radio.
> Previous person wants to put words or thoughts that I
> already made up my mind, I'm not going to argue about it?
> Why? That wasn't what's threads about.
>

No one's trying to put words in your mouth, though you did confirm in your own words what you apparently said (operative word, "apparently"). Your observations about terrestrial radio may have been interesting, but the fact they were coming from someone who's decided to no longer be a loyal consumer of terrestrial radio is also interesting --especially since satellite will dramatically alter the terrestrial music radio landscape, if not eliminate it completely.

It's sort of like the guy who goes to a friend's house to watch television for the first time in 20 years and observe that it's a lot different from the 80s, then goes back to reading books.

As for killing the thread, it seems that's already been done by readers of this very quiet board. We'll see.
 
> > > "As I was driving my rental vehicle for 2 weeks, I was
> > also
> > > without access of a satellite radio, which meant welcome
>
> > > back to the world of terrestrial radio."
> > >
> > > That statement is more of an indictment than any
> > observation
> > > you may have about radio in San Francisco and
> Sacramento.
> > > It appears you've already decided who is better:
> > > satellite.
> > >
> >
> > Your Right.
> > 1.XM
> > 2.Sacramento
> > 3.San Fran.
>
> Then maybe I should just go ahead and kill this thread?
>
Thread killing ... Is that anything like censorship? Thread killers should not be tolerated.
 
> > Why kill this thread? The main topic is Who's better? San
> > Fran. or Sacramento?
> > I just happened to be without another medium I most
> usually
> > listen to make this comparison or observation. But what
> does
> > this have to do with satellite radio.
> > Previous person wants to put words or thoughts that I
> > already made up my mind, I'm not going to argue about it?
> > Why? That wasn't what's threads about.
> >
>
> No one's trying to put words in your mouth, though you did
> confirm in your own words what you apparently said
> (operative word, "apparently"). Your observations about
> terrestrial radio may have been interesting, but the fact
> they were coming from someone who's decided to no longer be
> a loyal consumer of terrestrial radio is also interesting
> --especially since satellite will dramatically alter the
> terrestrial music radio landscape, if not eliminate it
> completely.
>


> It's sort of like the guy who goes to a friend's house to
> watch television for the first time in 20 years and observe
> that it's a lot different from the 80s, then goes back to
> reading books.
>
Don't be silly. That's not a good comparison. Yes I prefer satellite over terrestrial, but that doesn't mean terrestrial doesn't exist. Like I never monitored these stations before? If I prefer the A's over the Giants...does that mean I can't cheer or attend a River Cats game because their not major league?

> As for killing the thread, it seems that's already been done
> by readers of this very quiet board. We'll see.
>

It's always been a slow board. A couple of indications...I noticed when I make a negative or positive post... and I receive slow response, it's usually because they agree with me or were on the same frequency. (get it, frequency?)
Or because it's too hot outside and everyone feels drained from the heat as I do.
Or I should've posted on the San Fran. board instead...because I gave the points to Sacramento.
It's like you women today....say something nice, i'm ignored. Say something insulting, I get more attention then I bargained for.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by apco25 on 07/27/05 12:24 AM.</FONT></P>
 
> > > Why kill this thread? The main topic is Who's better?
> San
> > > Fran. or Sacramento?
> > > I just happened to be without another medium I most
> > usually
> > > listen to make this comparison or observation. But what
> > does
> > > this have to do with satellite radio.
> > > Previous person wants to put words or thoughts that I
> > > already made up my mind, I'm not going to argue about
> it?
> > > Why? That wasn't what's threads about.
> > >
> >
> > No one's trying to put words in your mouth, though you did
>
> > confirm in your own words what you apparently said
> > (operative word, "apparently"). Your observations about
> > terrestrial radio may have been interesting, but the fact
> > they were coming from someone who's decided to no longer
> be
> > a loyal consumer of terrestrial radio is also interesting
> > --especially since satellite will dramatically alter the
> > terrestrial music radio landscape, if not eliminate it
> > completely.
> >
>
>
> > It's sort of like the guy who goes to a friend's house to
> > watch television for the first time in 20 years and
> observe
> > that it's a lot different from the 80s, then goes back to
> > reading books.
> >
> Don't be silly. That's not a good comparison. Yes I prefer
> satellite over terrestrial, but that doesn't mean
> terrestrial doesn't exist. Like I never monitored these
> stations before? If I prefer the A's over the Giants...does
> that mean I can't cheer or attend a River Cats game because
> their not major league?
>
> > As for killing the thread, it seems that's already been
> done
> > by readers of this very quiet board. We'll see.
> >
>
> It's always been a slow board. A couple of indications...I
> noticed when I make a negative or positive post... and I
> receive slow response, it's usually because they agree with
> me or were on the same frequency. (get it, frequency?)
> Or because it's too hot outside and everyone feels drained
> from the heat as I do.
> Or I should've posted on the San Fran. board
> instead...because I gave the points to Sacramento.
> It's like you women today....say something nice, i'm
> ignored. Say something insulting, I get more attention then
> I bargained for.
>

Fine, whatever. You win. The people in terrestrial radio thank you for your patronage.

Now, aside from that sarcastic crack, consider this. If you're willing to concede that it is music radio which will suffer the most from the encroaching satellite medium --and I suspect most would agree with that-- how about comparing the frequencies on the AM band, where many say terrestrial radio will survive satellite competition? KNBR may be a debateable subject but is there any doubt that KFBK and KSTE pale in comparison to KGO and KCBS?

It's interesting. You'd think higher revenues and presumably higher salaries in the larger market would attract higher quality people, and thus yield a better product, yet by your assessment, that formula doesn't seem to hold true for the music stations. How is this possible? That is a rather sad indictment, either on the staffers involved, or (as I suspect may be the case) some sort of cumbersome corporate ineptitude.

It's worth noting, by the way, that Doug Harvill, the market manager for Infinity in Sac just took the same position in San Francisco.

On the other hand, all the advantages of a larger market are clearly evident in the product on the news and news talk stations. One of the few things KFBK was able to do was traffic. Their news room couldn't break a story if Karl Rove called in to say he's guilty --the price one pays when you don't offer top dollar for experienced pros (and an explanation why their best people leave for bigger markets). But at least they could deliver traffic.

Not any more. One gimmick appears to be someone hired to drive in the car, get stuck in traffic and tell you where it is. "Yeah, it's bumper to bumper here on 80, though whatever is causing it is probably three miles up the road and I can't see that 'cause I'm stuck here." Can you imagine hearing that in the Bay Area?

Listen, I never felt your observations lacked merit or that you were in no position to make them. It just seemed a little displaced, or as one person in the market said, "He doesn't listen to us, who cares what he thinks?"

No one is saying that person is right (a manager, by the way) --in fact, it's seems foolishly defensive to me-- but there's a certain pragmatism to what he says and I can understand what he means.
 
> > > > Why kill this thread? The main topic is Who's better?
> > San
> > > > Fran. or Sacramento?
> > > > I just happened to be without another medium I most
> > > usually
> > > > listen to make this comparison or observation. But
> what
> > > does
> > > > this have to do with satellite radio.
> > > > Previous person wants to put words or thoughts that I
> > > > already made up my mind, I'm not going to argue about
> > it?
> > > > Why? That wasn't what's threads about.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No one's trying to put words in your mouth, though you
> did
> >
> > > confirm in your own words what you apparently said
> > > (operative word, "apparently"). Your observations about
>
> > > terrestrial radio may have been interesting, but the
> fact
> > > they were coming from someone who's decided to no longer
>
> > be
> > > a loyal consumer of terrestrial radio is also
> interesting
> > > --especially since satellite will dramatically alter the
>
> > > terrestrial music radio landscape, if not eliminate it
> > > completely.
> > >
> >
> >
> > > It's sort of like the guy who goes to a friend's house
> to
> > > watch television for the first time in 20 years and
> > observe
> > > that it's a lot different from the 80s, then goes back
> to
> > > reading books.
> > >
> > Don't be silly. That's not a good comparison. Yes I prefer
>
> > satellite over terrestrial, but that doesn't mean
> > terrestrial doesn't exist. Like I never monitored these
> > stations before? If I prefer the A's over the
> Giants...does
> > that mean I can't cheer or attend a River Cats game
> because
> > their not major league?
> >
> > > As for killing the thread, it seems that's already been
> > done
> > > by readers of this very quiet board. We'll see.
> > >
> >
> > It's always been a slow board. A couple of indications...I
>
> > noticed when I make a negative or positive post... and I
> > receive slow response, it's usually because they agree
> with
> > me or were on the same frequency. (get it, frequency?)
> > Or because it's too hot outside and everyone feels drained
>
> > from the heat as I do.
> > Or I should've posted on the San Fran. board
> > instead...because I gave the points to Sacramento.
> > It's like you women today....say something nice, i'm
> > ignored. Say something insulting, I get more attention
> then
> > I bargained for.
> >
>
> Fine, whatever. You win. The people in terrestrial radio
> thank you for your patronage.
>
> Now, aside from that sarcastic crack, consider this. If
> you're willing to concede that it is music radio which will
> suffer the most from the encroaching satellite medium --and
> I suspect most would agree with that-- how about comparing
> the frequencies on the AM band, where many say terrestrial
> radio will survive satellite competition? KNBR may be a
> debateable subject but is there any doubt that KFBK and KSTE
> pale in comparison to KGO and KCBS?

You made a point when it comes to delivering news. And yes when it comes to news and talk, San Fran has a broader edge. When it comes to the caliber of the announcers, yes San Francisco will win out in most cases.
But I was just comparing the formats and music variety on the FM band. And these days it doesn't matter about the disc jockeys or announcers, or even the imaging. I'm stating that Sacramento as a smaller market provides more places to go then San Fran. It been that way for at least 5 or more years, and it's gotten worst for San Fran.
>
> It's interesting. You'd think higher revenues and
> presumably higher salaries in the larger market would
> attract higher quality people, and thus yield a better
> product, yet by your assessment, that formula doesn't seem
> to hold true for the music stations. How is this possible?
> That is a rather sad indictment, either on the staffers
> involved, or (as I suspect may be the case) some sort of
> cumbersome corporate ineptitude.
>
All you have to do is listen to the variety. I noticed Cool has a much broader playlist then KFRC. I noticed more selections in formats as Sacramento will add songs faster then San Fran. In these days it makes a diffrerence. It's just one market is safer then the other.

> It's worth noting, by the way, that Doug Harvill, the
> market manager for Infinity in Sac just took the same
> position in San Francisco.
>
I'm sure these days , he's a also market manager in Seattle, Boston, New York, Anchorage, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if he publishes the R&R charts. Everybody is a man of many hats these days. That's why it sounds like it does.

> On the other hand, all the advantages of a larger market
> are clearly evident in the product on the news and news talk
> stations. One of the few things KFBK was able to do was
> traffic. Their news room couldn't break a story if Karl
> Rove called in to say he's guilty --the price one pays when
> you don't offer top dollar for experienced pros (and an
> explanation why their best people leave for bigger markets).
> But at least they could deliver traffic.
>
> Not any more. One gimmick appears to be someone hired to
> drive in the car, get stuck in traffic and tell you where it
> is. "Yeah, it's bumper to bumper here on 80, though
> whatever is causing it is probably three miles up the road
> and I can't see that 'cause I'm stuck here." Can you
> imagine hearing that in the Bay Area?

I try my best not to listen to traffic. The Bay area has probably the best traffic program announcers in the country. They have too, when 80% of the Bay area population spends half their lives commuting.
>
> Listen, I never felt your observations lacked merit or
> that you were in no position to make them. It just seemed a
> little displaced, or as one person in the market said, "He
> doesn't listen to us, who cares what he thinks?"
>
I listen from time to time. I'm stating that I notice a bit of a difference, mainly in Sacramento. San fran with the exception of Jack, still sounds the same ole song. Now back to the 80's on 8.
> No one is saying that person is right (a manager, by the
> way) --in fact, it's seems foolishly defensive to me-- but
> there's a certain pragmatism to what he says and I can
> understand what he means.
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom