• 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

Sad news for those who think radio is dying.

davideduardo

davideduardo

Moderator/Administrator
Staff member
From Inside Radio

Radio's Time Spent Listening shows just a "minor drop" over the last three years. A large-scale study of the top 12 markets from Research Director Inc. shows that total week listening averages 19 hours and 55 minutes - what Charlie Sislen calls "a minor drop" of 3.4% given the appearance of iPods and satellite radio. TSL is mostly down where you'd expect - in younger demos. For both 25-54s and 36-64s it's at 21 hours a week.

Here is the complete report...

http://www.researchdirectorinc.com/index2.htm
 
Sad news

But, David- what is the sour-grapes crowd gonna whine about now(LOL)? iPods and Satellite won't replace us in the next 6 months- DAMN!



> From Inside Radio
>
> Radio's Time Spent Listening shows just a "minor drop" over
> the last three years. A large-scale study of the top 12
> markets from Research Director Inc. shows that total week
> listening averages 19 hours and 55 minutes - what Charlie
> Sislen calls "a minor drop" of 3.4% given the appearance of
> iPods and satellite radio. TSL is mostly down where you'd
> expect - in younger demos. For both 25-54s and 36-64s it's
> at 21 hours a week.
>
> Here is the complete report...
>
> http://www.researchdirectorinc.com/index2.htm
>
 
> From Inside Radio
>
> Radio's Time Spent Listening shows just a "minor drop" over
> the last three years. A large-scale study of the top 12
> markets from Research Director Inc. shows that total week
> listening averages 19 hours and 55 minutes - what Charlie
> Sislen calls "a minor drop" of 3.4% given the appearance of
> iPods and satellite radio. TSL is mostly down where you'd
> expect - in younger demos. For both 25-54s and 36-64s it's
> at 21 hours a week.
>
> Here is the complete report...
>
> http://www.researchdirectorinc.com/index2.htm
>
You are LOSING BUSINESS and you're crowing about it? I'd think you should be more concerned about getting MORE listeners!

People stop listening to radio because there is nothing there for them. Ways have been discussed for getting the listeners back, but you keep pooh-poohing them. Maybe you DESERVE the smaller piece of pie you're getting.
 
> You are LOSING BUSINESS and you're crowing about it? I'd
> think you should be more concerned about getting MORE
> listeners!

Nobody said there would not be some erosion given all the new leisure time options available to people. I remind you that radio has been killed about 7 times in the past... phonograph records, 45's, Television, Cable, Cassettes, CD's, Video Games, internet streaming, etc. The fact is, in the demos radio cares about, which are mostly 25-54 and 18-49, listening levels per person are about the same as they were in 1950.
>
> People stop listening to radio because there is nothing
> there for them.

That statement contradicts the facts I posted.

> Ways have been discussed for getting the
> listeners back, but you keep pooh-poohing them. Maybe you
> DESERVE the smaller piece of pie you're getting.

Very few listeners have left. Radio cumes within 2% of what it cumed in 1965 when Arbitron began, based on percentage of total 12+ persons.
>
 
Re: Sad news

> But, David- what is the sour-grapes crowd gonna whine about
> now(LOL)? iPods and Satellite won't replace us in the next
> 6 months- DAMN!

There are plenty of down-the-road challenges. But there are also solutions. Radio is still an optimum reach vehicle for advertisers, and will be such for some time.
 
Re: Sad news

> But, David- what is the sour-grapes crowd gonna whine about
> now(LOL)? iPods and Satellite won't replace us in the next
> 6 months- DAMN!
>
Anyone at anytime can be replaced even without good reason just be grateful for the time you have.
 
Percent Change in TSL From Fall 2002 - Fall 2005

Men Women
12-17 -7.22% -4.78%
18-24 -2.57% -4.98%
25-34 -4.08% -9.09%
35-44 -2.86% -4.33%
45-54 -2.22% -0.64%
55-64 0.62% -3.85%
 
Re: Sad news

> > But, David- what is the sour-grapes crowd gonna whine
> about
> > now(LOL)? iPods and Satellite won't replace us in the
> next
> > 6 months- DAMN!
>
> There are plenty of down-the-road challenges. But there are
> also solutions. Radio is still an optimum reach vehicle for
> advertisers, and will be such for some time.
>
David you're right...we are not going away anytime soon. The strong will survive...the weak will turn to brokered time sales or paid religion. There are way too many recievers out there to forecast a total crash anytime soon.

Look back into the 70's when the shift from AM to FM was starting to go full tilt. Legendary stations like KFI, WLS, WABC, etc...had to re-invent themselves. The ones who didn't went paid religion or time brokered or something...satellite...forgotten step child of their popular FM sisters.

I think the future holds the absolute economic and listenership death of AM in many markets, as weaker fm stations will start taking the brokered formats and paid religion away. It will be market by market, and some of the big AM players will simulcast their "fare" on under performing FM stations. (Bonneville with WTOP and KSL as an example)
 
bitter & paranoid

Like I said.

> >
> Anyone at anytime can be replaced even without good reason
> just be grateful for the time you have.
>
> > But, David- what is the sour-grapes crowd gonna whine
> about now(LOL)? iPods and Satellite won't replace us in the
> next 6 months- DAMN!
 
Re: Sad news

> the weak will turn to brokered
> time sales or paid religion.

And probably make some good coin doing so!
 
Those are interesting numbers. I don't have any reason to challenge them but I'd like to read more. Can you source those statistics for us?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that it's not just radio that is facing competition, it's the whole media world. TV is surviving despite cable, satellite tv, downloadable movies and now video iPods. Radio will too but it will be a whole lot more fragmented just like every other medium. The challenge is going to be to sustain the advertising model.

> Percent Change in TSL From Fall 2002 - Fall 2005
>
> Men Women
> 12-17 -7.22% -4.78%
> 18-24 -2.57% -4.98%
> 25-34 -4.08% -9.09%
> 35-44 -2.86% -4.33%
> 45-54 -2.22% -0.64%
> 55-64 0.62% -3.85%
> <P ID="signature">______________
SD</P>
 
Re: Sad news

The sour-grapes crowd obviously has absolutely no experience owning or running local radio stations. I could care less what iPods or Satellite radio are doing. They can't compete with me, period-paragraph. To me, it's just absolutely laughable to think that a national non-market-specific service will ever put me out of business.

I've spent a lot of time and effort finding out exactly what makes my audience listen to my stations, and here's what I have found: they crave local information. They love hearing local weather and news, high school sports, and all the other local content we provide, including even the obituaries. And guess what? There's not another place on earth, even the local newspaper, where they can get the information I provide in as timely a manner as I provide it. So long as I do my job properly, I'm never going to lose my audience to iPod or XM/Sirius. Sure, my listeners have an iPod, and some of them subscribe to a Satellite service. But you better believe they'll be turning back to one of my stations to hear basketball on Friday night. And when they are stuck in unending traffic and see an accident ahead, they'll be listening to my newscasts to find out what happened.

From a revenue perspective, I have nothing to worry about either. There's not a single business on my client list who would advertise nationally on XM in lieu of on my stations, even if they could afford it. The local furniture store needs to market locally. That's where I come in. Again, nobody else on earth can offer what I can to my local clients.

Sure, XM and Sirius might make a dent in major-market radio, because their business models are more similar and based on national ad dollars. But folks, not all radio is major-market radio. To throw us all in the same category as just "radio" is not an accurate depiction of reality.

If anybody thinks our business is dying, come on down to Kentucky when we do a remote at the local mall. You'll see real quick that radio is still a viable medium.

Did local TV die when cable and satellite came into the picture? No. Some of the most wealthy people I know own and operate local TV stations. Did radio cease to exist when the cassette/45 record/8 track/CD was invented? No, we just adapted. And, we'll continue to adapt.


And one more note, aimed at the "absolute economic and listenership death of AM" comment. It will only die if we let it. It's still as viable now as it was twenty years ago if you run the station correctly. It's all about management and doing things right.

...and there's my rant for the day!
 
Re: AM is not dead

Sorry but I'm sick of all these "AM is dead posts". Sure, I will agree especially in light of HD Radio that some station on 1580 or such in LA is dead, but it's absurd to suggest we write the obitchuary column for KFI, WABC, WLS, and many other "strong signals".

Mabye I'm too optomistic, but let's not write the "this is your life" story for something that has existed for well over 80 years.

> > the weak will turn to brokered
> > time sales or paid religion.
>
> And probably make some good coin doing so!
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Happy 20th Birthday Power 106

JOSH, Moderating the whole Radio-Info radio state of California and Indiana too!

www.myspace.com/radiogeek500</P>
 
WOW! GREAT POST!!

> The sour-grapes crowd obviously has absolutely no experience
> owning or running local radio stations. I could care less
> what iPods or Satellite radio are doing. They can't compete
> with me, period-paragraph. To me, it's just absolutely
> laughable to think that a national non-market-specific
> service will ever put me out of business.
>
> I've spent a lot of time and effort finding out exactly what
> makes my audience listen to my stations, and here's what I
> have found: they crave local information. They love hearing
> local weather and news, high school sports, and all the
> other local content we provide, including even the
> obituaries. And guess what? There's not another place on
> earth, even the local newspaper, where they can get the
> information I provide in as timely a manner as I provide it.
> So long as I do my job properly, I'm never going to lose my
> audience to iPod or XM/Sirius. Sure, my listeners have an
> iPod, and some of them subscribe to a Satellite service. But
> you better believe they'll be turning back to one of my
> stations to hear basketball on Friday night. And when they
> are stuck in unending traffic and see an accident ahead,
> they'll be listening to my newscasts to find out what
> happened.
>
> From a revenue perspective, I have nothing to worry about
> either. There's not a single business on my client list who
> would advertise nationally on XM in lieu of on my stations,
> even if they could afford it. The local furniture store
> needs to market locally. That's where I come in. Again,
> nobody else on earth can offer what I can to my local
> clients.
>
> Sure, XM and Sirius might make a dent in major-market radio,
> because their business models are more similar and based on
> national ad dollars. But folks, not all radio is
> major-market radio. To throw us all in the same category as
> just "radio" is not an accurate depiction of reality.
>
> If anybody thinks our business is dying, come on down to
> Kentucky when we do a remote at the local mall. You'll see
> real quick that radio is still a viable medium.
>
> Did local TV die when cable and satellite came into the
> picture? No. Some of the most wealthy people I know own and
> operate local TV stations. Did radio cease to exist when the
> cassette/45 record/8 track/CD was invented? No, we just
> adapted. And, we'll continue to adapt.
>
>
> And one more note, aimed at the "absolute economic and
> listenership death of AM" comment. It will only die if we
> let it. It's still as viable now as it was twenty years ago
> if you run the station correctly. It's all about management
> and doing things right.
>
> ...and there's my rant for the day!
>

AWESOME! You have SOOO nailed it on the head! You undertsand what is going on, and not "knee jerk reacting" like so many others. You have taken the time to understand the situation! BRAVO!

I especially like your comment "AM.. It will only die if we let it". How true is that??!! So many broadcasters have just said, Oh it AM, throw some crap bird fed stuff on it and be done. If you actually program the station, people will come!

We have a AC/standards AM. We put on a Sweethearts ball this weekend. I think there were more 20/30 year olds there than elderly. Yes the yonger demos can and will listen to AM!

Now if we can get some of the others in radio to understand...

BTW if you should ever need a chief engineer..... Good business minds could go a LOOONG way!
 
They never mention cume

Notice these reports that get made public never mention cume. These "reports" are press releases for broadcasters and for their consultants and suppliers. Of course, they are going to "puff" the radio biz.

Fewer people are listening. The pie gets smaller while people talk about slices. And even a "minor drop" in TSL over 12 months starts to add up from one year to the next. Bet these "ratings experts" read "How to Lie with Statistics." Heck, maybe they even wrote it.

Don't waste your time on the link to this so-called "report." It gets you these consultants' website homepage - not the report. And the homepage does not have a link to the report. And the pages linked to the homepage don't have the "report" either. (Pet peeve: Dead-end, wild-goose-chase links. If you won't provide a link to what you are actually citing, don't bother.)

The capacity of broadcasters to bury their heads in the sand continues to amaze me. Toss around all the statistics you want from these so-called "reports" but the bottom line is radio is consolidated, syndicated, automated and voice-tracked - all to save money - and still not all that profitable overall. Why? Because the money is not coming in. Rates are down because advertisers place less value on radio advertising and spend less on radio advertising.
 
Re-inventing radio

I hear a lot of talk about how radio re-invented itself before. I don't see it happening now. Radio keeps re-arranging the desk chairs on the Titanic and tells the look-out how shouts "iceberg" that he's bitter and pessimisstic ("this ship is unsinkable"). Radio is business that believes that if something is not working, you should do more of it.

Insanity: Continuing to take the same action while expecting a different outcome.
 
Re: AM is not dead

> Sorry but I'm sick of all these "AM is dead posts". Sure, I
> will agree especially in light of HD Radio that some station
> on 1580 or such in LA is dead, but it's absurd to suggest we
> write the obitchuary column for KFI, WABC, WLS, and many
> other "strong signals".
>
> Mabye I'm too optomistic, but let's not write the "this is
> your life" story for something that has existed for well
> over 80 years.
>

Exactly! Shall we continue?? How about the likes of WLW, KMOX, WSB, KOA, KSL, KOGO, WCCO, WTMJ, WJR, WGN, KGO, WEEI, WLW, WBAP, WBBM, KYW, WBZ, KFYI, KIRO, KEX, WTAM, KFBK...and so on......

> > > the weak will turn to brokered
> > > time sales or paid religion.
> >
> > And probably make some good coin doing so!
> >
>
 
Re: Sad news

> > the weak will turn to brokered
> > time sales or paid religion.
>
> And probably make some good coin doing so!
>
Not when they paid 21 times cash flow for it a few years earlier and the stockholders or the bank want their money...
 
Re: Sad news

> > > the weak will turn to brokered
> > > time sales or paid religion.
> >
> > And probably make some good coin doing so!
> >
> Not when they paid 21 times cash flow for it a few years
> earlier and the stockholders or the bank want their money...
>

Irrelevant to the conversation. The thread already
acknowledged that the station was "weak". What was paid
for it a few years earlier now becomes moot.
 
Re: They never mention cume

> The capacity of broadcasters to bury their heads in the sand
> continues to amaze me. Toss around all the statistics you
> want from these so-called "reports" but the bottom line is
> radio is consolidated, syndicated, automated and
> voice-tracked - all to save money - and still not all that
> profitable overall. Why? Because the money is not coming
> in. Rates are down because advertisers place less value on
> radio advertising and spend less on radio advertising.
>

and your data is based on what? how? where?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom