Seattle-Tacoma Radio Ratings: January 2015

[davideduardo]

WCBS, WBBM, WINS, WTOP-FM, KNX, KCBS continue to thrive as all-news stations. Why not KOMO?

New York is market #1
Chicago is Market #3
Washington is market #7 and the news capital of the Western Hemisphere
Los Angeles is market #2

Atlanta, market #9 and Houston, Market #6 have both recently failed in attempts to make all-news viable.

Seattle is market #13. KOMO does quite well considering that news is a cume driven format and the smaller the market, the smaller the cume base.

Another of the issues is that all news is very expensive, and the costs don't decline in proportion to market size. So, where LA has about $750 million in radio revenues, Seattle has around $160 million. So the same audience share that is profitable in LA produces only about 20% of the revenue in Seattle.

 

[KMan]

Also, Los Angeles, probably more than most of the other all-news markets, has seen major upheaval at its stations.

Long time competitors KWFB and KNX eventually ended up under the same ownership, and over the last few years, KFWB was bled dry until it finally switched formats.

Meanwhile, KNX suffered from a move away from all-news in the mid-00s under David G Hall. While they've returned to that format, their newsroom is substantially smaller today than it was a decade ago (as is KOMO's). They still have the same number of anchors on the air, but their reporter corps has been decimated. I remember checking out their website a decade ago and being shocked by the number of reporters on hand (15-20) ... I looked the other day, I think they're down to 8.

 

[davideduardo]

Also, Los Angeles, probably more than most of the other all-news markets, has seen major upheaval at its stations.

What we have seen is actually an upheaval of demographics. The Hispanic population is now 42% of the market. African Americans are down to below 8%, Asians are above 12% and "other" immigrants are over 10% (Persians, Russians, etc). The audiences for some traditional formats are so small as to no longer be viable, while those that appeal to parts of the various ethnic communities have surged.

Long time competitors KWFB and KNX eventually ended up under the same ownership, and over the last few years, KFWB was bled dry until it finally switched formats.

KFWB was not "bled dry". At a point, the declining total share for English language all news could not support two stations. And since KFWB has a very limited signal compared to KNX, it went "away". At one point there were over 8 news shares in LA. Now, the total shares are around 4 and much of that audience is in the geezer demos.

Meanwhile, KNX suffered from a move away from all-news in the mid-00s under David G Hall.

All that David Hall did was do a couple of specialty shows like a noon business hour. It was still all news.

While they've returned to that format, their newsroom is substantially smaller today than it was a decade ago (as is KOMO's). They still have the same number of anchors on the air, but their reporter corps has been decimated. I remember checking out their website a decade ago and being shocked by the number of reporters on hand (15-20) ... I looked the other day, I think they're down to 8.

Well, the $1.1 billion dollar market now bills $750 million. KNX is now averaging at about 28th in 25-54. To their credit, they have managed to keep billing flat for several years, but it is well below the levels of the early 2000's. We can't expect the level of staffing for a format with declining sales demo performance in a market where revenues continue to decline and where a huge portion of the population would not be expected to ever use the format.

Consider also that there are now so many alternative methods to news gathering that the traditional mobile unit or the traffic helicopter are obsolete and even arcane.

 

[KMan]

David -

I agree with some, but not all, of what you said above.

Regarding KNX and KFWB - do you feel the outcome would have been different had they not been owned by the same group? Rather than dig down into real competition, based on product excellence, CBS slowly began reducing the scope of one of the stations (KFWB) until the format really was no longer viable.

Regarding the viability of a product in Los Angeles, I'll say the same thing here that I said to my boss when they closed our struggling Los Angeles division (different industry). Yes, there's a lot of competition, yes, its segmented, but the pie in Los Angeles is huge.

Finally, while I understand the racial and ethnic divide in Los Angeles has reduced the numbers in what would be considered the traditional demographic, I don't buy the fact that in order to reach Hispanic-Americans the programming has to be in Spanish. Actually, I think that mentality is a little bit offensive. Could it be that stations like KNX are not only not serving those communities well (do they ever send a reporter to cover a big story in that community), meanwhile the Spanish-talk stations do, therefore they are choosing the Spanish-language station because of the coverage of their neighborhood/community that the big boys are ignoring? Would it not be the case that if the same Spanish-language station were to cover those communities - in English - they would still grab more of that demo just based on the coverage?

 

[davideduardo]

David -

I agree with some, but not all, of what you said above.

Regarding KNX and KFWB - do you feel the outcome would have been different had they not been owned by the same group? Rather than dig down into real competition, based on product excellence, CBS slowly began reducing the scope of one of the stations (KFWB) until the format really was no longer viable.

Even prior to the consolidation of the two, both were getting around or below a 2 share, and seeing the 25-54 eroding. It was obvious that the two were splitting a share "slice" that would really only sustain one station. The issue was that the KFWB signal could not compete in any other format so they likely dragged it out longer than they should have. What would have made sense at one point is to combine the two into one really superb news operation and spin off the AM when prices were high.

Regarding the viability of a product in Los Angeles, I'll say the same thing here that I said to my boss when they closed our struggling Los Angeles division (different industry). Yes, there's a lot of competition, yes, its segmented, but the pie in Los Angeles is huge.

But LA revenue is off 40% from the peak $1.1 billion level, and that percentage is very close to the operating margin of many music stations. It is more than the margin of the more costly spoken word stations.

Finally, while I understand the racial and ethnic divide in Los Angeles has reduced the numbers in what would be considered the traditional demographic, I don't buy the fact that in order to reach Hispanic-Americans the programming has to be in Spanish. Actually, I think that mentality is a little bit offensive. Could it be that stations like KNX are not only not serving those communities well (do they ever send a reporter to cover a big story in that community), meanwhile the Spanish-talk stations do, therefore they are choosing the Spanish-language station because of the coverage of their neighborhood/community that the big boys are ignoring?

There is no Spanish language talk station. The closest we come is all-Sports, and it gets a 0.4. Half of LA Hispanics are Spanish dominant, and don't use English language media. Among bilinguals and English dominants, there is a very low use of talk and informational stations, just as is the case among African Americans.

There is no "Hispanic community" in the geographic sense in LA. There are very few ZIP Codes that are below 20% Hispanic because there is such a huge percentage overall. At the emotional level, there are multiple communities, ranging from recent immigrants to later generation "pochos", each with a different attitude. And then there are Mexicans from Mexico City who perceive themselves as different from the rest of Mexicans. And Central Americans who tend not to blend with Mexicans. And so on. There is no commonality on many things except the very low usage of English language spoken word media.

Would it not be the case that if the same Spanish-language station were to cover those communities - in English - they would still grab more of that demo just based on the coverage?

No, because most users of Spanish language media don't have "good enough" English to use English language services of a comparable kind. And, of course, the fact that there is no single community with singularity of interests among Hispanics.

 

[boombox4]

That's not a lack of effort, that's called having a different format.

I was originally commenting on Crainbebo's observations concerning KOMO vs. KIRO, and my comments still stand. One of the two is more interesting to listen to, and has a stronger signal in much of Seattle. Maybe KOMO needs to change their format.

 

[AQH]

I was originally commenting on Crainbebo's observations concerning KOMO vs. KIRO, and my comments still stand. One of the two is more interesting to listen to, and has a stronger signal in much of Seattle. Maybe KOMO needs to change their format.

Thing is, you gave the impression that KOMO doesn't care or doesn't put any effort into what they do. Fact is, doing all-news takes a ton more effort than what KIRO does. Both formats (and they are different) require a lot more work than music formats.

As correctly pointed out upthread, there are a lot of other factors that go into the news format, including expectations of what is effort and success. To go by 6+ format ratings and deem whether a station is successful or not is foolish.

And to make these broad assumptions on those stations without the name "Seahawks" not included shows how uninformed your guesses are.

 

[Unregistered]

That's not a lack of effort, that's called having a different format.

I think you're quasi right, though if you listen to the shows you'll notice they have more in common. Ron and Don is a bad example for KIRO since they rarely talk about the news or go over important issues (certainly not in depth) and are phoning it in. Rantz goes deep into meaningful stories that KOMO spends 2 minutes on (and even though I disagree with some of his end positions, he always presents both sides and is fair and damn smart); Seattle's Morning News does headlines but gives you some great traffic and goes a bit more in-depth (Dave is a master) - something KOMO should be doing 24/7 but doesn't. Coast to Coast is a totally different format and seems weird on KIRO but it's late so I imagine less willing to put resources into it.

 

[CarAgencyGuy]

Moderator, Please move the discussion about LA radio to the appropriate location. This thread is about Seattle Tacoma January ratings. Thank you.

 

[CarAgencyGuy]

Thoughts on KNDD "two minute promise"? How about KHTP apparently maintaining their position despite lots of initial concerns that their format would 'burn out" , "get tired" or otherwise tank after about a year?

 

[fordranger797]

Thoughts on KNDD "two minute promise"? How about KHTP apparently maintaining their position despite lots of initial concerns that their format would 'burn out" , "get tired" or otherwise tank after about a year?

I like it because I like listening to KNDD for leisure. At the same time, I have a hard time believing that their new system is increasing revenue. Their plan was to increase the number of actual breaks per hour and reduce the number of spots they run per break. I'd like to know if their new business model is working.

As for KHTP, as professionals have mentioned before, its popular in its individual target demos. I guess its not going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[CarAgencyGuy]

As I understood the model for KNDD, they were NOT increasing the number of breaks. The model would work based on charging more for the spots because the ratings would go up. It would be interesting to know how many actual minutes of commercials there are in an hour on KNDD relative to the 'standard' or competitors. On the surface it makes sense to get back to the music as quickly as possible on a music station and advertisers like not to be jammed into a long break which was something that used to happen a few years ago especially that :50 break. It does create at least a 'perceived' competitive advantage although you have to walk the line - "back the music faster=good" "fewer ads=ads are bad".

 

[fordranger797]

As I understood the model for KNDD, they were NOT increasing the number of breaks. The model would work based on charging more for the spots because the ratings would go up. It would be interesting to know how many actual minutes of commercials there are in an hour on KNDD relative to the 'standard' or competitors. On the surface it makes sense to get back to the music as quickly as possible on a music station and advertisers like not to be jammed into a long break which was something that used to happen a few years ago especially that :50 break. It does create at least a 'perceived' competitive advantage although you have to walk the line - "back the music faster=good" "fewer ads=ads are bad".

Considering that no advertiser prefers to be jammed in a long set of spots (as you said), I would also assume KNDD was able to raise prices because its a "short and sweet" break. KNDD employs a very interesting programming choice; they launch right into the break without any interaction from air talent, station promos, or anything. A song may literally have a cold ending and you will be hearing a spot for car insurance. That's one way to guarantee the listener hears the the first spot (or the very beginning of it at least).

 

[boombox4]

Thing is, you gave the impression that KOMO doesn't care or doesn't put any effort into what they do. Fact is, doing all-news takes a ton more effort than what KIRO does. Both formats (and they are different) require a lot more work than music formats.

As correctly pointed out upthread, there are a lot of other factors that go into the news format, including expectations of what is effort and success. To go by 6+ format ratings and deem whether a station is successful or not is foolish.

And to make these broad assumptions on those stations without the name "Seahawks" not included shows how uninformed your guesses are.

(Weird, I replied to this post last night & the bulletin board must have eaten it...)

I went by the 6+ numbers because they are the only criteria used in this thread.

I'm sure KOMO AM is successful. They are the number three AM in this market. Obviously, they are making money, and any business running a radio station which is making money is successful.

Like I said before -- Crainbebo was comparing KOMO-AM and KIRO-FM, and I added my own opinion as to why KIRO-FM would be ahead in the ratings - the first reason being KOMO-FM's low signal in much of the Seattle area, and my own take on KOMO's programming vs. KIRO-FM's (Seahawks aside -- KIRO-FM wasn't all Seahawks 24/7). I was not trying to slight the effort KOMO personnel put into their programming.

I just don't think it's as effective -- especially at night. I think KOMO used to run Jim Bohannon at night. Now they don't anymore. Non-stop news headlines are great during the day, but at night?

But if the experts as yourself think otherwise, you obviously have your finger on the pulse of things that work. But that doesn't mean that my own opinion is completely invalid.

 

[AQH]

But if the experts as yourself think otherwise, you obviously have your finger on the pulse of things that work. But that doesn't mean that my own opinion is completely invalid.

If you want to put me on a pedestal and declare me an expert, feel free.

All I am saying is that your metrics need calibrating.