Should Radio Program To 55+?

[MikeDane]

Re: NO

>
> At the risk of deletion of what is now a painfully tedious
> post, I second K.M's comments and add that you, also, seem
> to have a need to bring up "asked and answered" issues over
> and over.

Thats funny considering I have been so busy doing other things
that I haven't posted in a long time.
>
> I remind you of the definition of insanity: "trying the same
> illogical act over and over, always hoping that the results
> will be different."

Then you better look in the mirror if you want to see insanity.

>
> The Fonz believes a number of staitons should lose money
> serving unprofitable sectors to avoid people getting XM or
> Sirius. He has been told that satellite is not the long term
> competion to radio, and he keeps asking hoping for a new
> answer.

No station should lose money, they are a business after all.
But guess what! that's my opinion. It's not Fonz's or maybe
anyone else's. I also think we need to institute the ownership
caps again. And that if a station can meet all of it's financial
obligations and still make a reasonable profit for its company
then it should continue on and not jump on the format of the
month just for a few more points/dollars. But that is just my
opinion.
If you don't like his posts then ignore them just like I ignore
posts that dont intrest me (some of yours and Cats come to mind).

>
> Broadband hand held devices that are phones, radios,
> cameras, message centers and calendars and more are the
> future threat. Deliver will be on demand, not real time and
> radio has to change its model of entertainment delivery or,
> eventually, die. But satellite is not the issue. It is a
> distraction, like mosquitos on a hike in Minnesota.

Wi-Fi and WiMax are indeed threats to regular radio in the
future, but to discount satellite shows a real lack of
intelligence on your part. It is too early to tell what
effect XM/Sirius will have on am/fm radio and we wont know
for sure until we're looking back on it. As more and more
cars are coming equipped with satellite radio from the
factory I think we may start seeing a slow shift, but it
will take time.
As for on demand features. that's fine for video where you
might focus for 30, 60 minutes, or more but radio is more
often the back ground noise in our lives it doesnt lend
itself to on demand as well, and for those who truly need
"on demand" music we have various mp3 players of various
sizes.

> Troll posts will not change facts. Calling in the moderator
> on a well deserved response to a whiny post is uncalled for.
> You sound like, "I'll take my marbles and go home" from a
> kid who is losing...
>

Fonz has his opinion and he's entitled to them just as you
and I are. If you don't like them ignore them, or is that too
adult for you. I notified the moderator because I don't
believe that KM's response was deserved at all. How would you
like it if I come in and started doing your job? and the only
whining I saw was from KM.
I havent lost one yet and I'm not about to start now. And I'm
not planning on going anywhere. I just dont have time to spend
all day here.
Think about it.

Mike Dane
WSTB-FM 88.9
SundayOldiesJukebox.com

 

[davideduardo]

Re: NO

>
> Wi-Fi and WiMax are indeed threats to regular radio in the
> future, but to discount satellite shows a real lack of
> intelligence on your part.

Why, thank you. My compliments to you, too, sir.

The fact is that I have been intimately involved with satellite, from well before the launch. I programmed 5 channels on X for several years.

The issue (and not ¨problem¨) is that there are nearly a billion "free radio" receivers and about 8 million ssatellite ones, including hundreds of thousands sitting on dealer lots unsold.

The satellite audience, even if it doubles, which it will fo in the next 3 to 4 years, is so samall it will not even account for a 0.3 rating of US listening, nationwide or in any given market. It is a niche, based on the model which is designed to be a niche, appealing to the small percentage of folks who are after something they can not get for free.

On the other hand, broadband technologies not yet introduced (you are not being intelligent by looking only at existing technologies) will allow free broadband radio, on demand, plus phone, video and messaging on a single hand held device. This is when radio moves its distribution to that system. And broadband will leapfrog satellite, making it obsolete before it is paid for. They are losing oodles of cash, you know, and will not make money for years...


> It is too early to tell what
> effect XM/Sirius will have on am/fm radio and we wont know
> for sure until we're looking back on it. As more and more
> cars are coming equipped with satellite radio from the
> factory I think we may start seeing a slow shift, but it
> will take time.

It will be over before it begins.

Car listening is only about 30% of total radio listening. Broadband devices will be portable, probably with bluetooth or other "virtual docking" capability for cars, at home and elsewhere... and will kill satellite.

> As for on demand features. that's fine for video where you
> might focus for 30, 60 minutes, or more but radio is more
> often the back ground noise in our lives it doesnt lend
> itself to on demand as well, and for those who truly need
> "on demand" music we have various mp3 players of various
> sizes.

I see. You don't think that many morning shows and talk shows will be more desirable if one can hear them fromt he beginning? Music is only a part of radio. In fact, even on FM, you realize that most morning shows are really talk shows? Oh, and they are free.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: NO

> Hang in there, Mike! We're in the minority here.

This has noting to do with minority or majority status. It is about being right or wrong. You fail to believe the reality of radio and advertising, and make conclusions based on your whishes and whims. That is wrong, and it simply establishes that you do not listen, even when many people have presented you with the facts.
>

 

[MikeDane]

Re: NO

> Thanks for the email, but KM is just expressing his opinion.
> 55+ isnt a ad demo that most buyers are looking for, for a
> variety of reasons (some well founded, some completely
> idiotic).
>
> KM is a moderator, regardless, and while he doesnt mod this
> board, he still is a mod for Radio Info. The little "M" tag
> by his s/n shouldnt be target symbol when he expresses his
> opinion. And complaining about a mod doesnt work too well:
> we tend to take care of our own to an extent.
>
I have no problem with KM expressing his opinion. However
I do have a problem with KM threatening a poster and that
is the way I took it. As for that little "M", well I could
not care less about it as far as opinions go but I do care
when someone thinks their god because of it. If he had a
problem with the post he should have came to you and pointed
it out. but I guess that's too much to ask.

Mike Dane
WSTB-FM 88.9
SundayOldiesJukebox.com

 

[MikeDane]

Re: NO

> >
> > Wi-Fi and WiMax are indeed threats to regular radio in the
>
> > future, but to discount satellite shows a real lack of
> > intelligence on your part.
>
> Why, thank you. My compliments to you, too, sir.

My apologies that was a poor choice of words and uncalled for.
maybe thought would be a better choice.
>
> The fact is that I have been intimately involved with
> satellite, from well before the launch. I programmed 5
> channels on X for several years.

not a factor here.

>
> The issue (and not ¨problem¨) is that there are nearly a
> billion "free radio" receivers and about 8 million
> ssatellite ones, including hundreds of thousands sitting on
> dealer lots unsold.

True but I think that will change. Like anything new it will
take time to catch on

>
> The satellite audience, even if it doubles, which it will fo
> in the next 3 to 4 years, is so samall it will not even
> account for a 0.3 rating of US listening, nationwide or in
> any given market. It is a niche, based on the model which is
> designed to be a niche, appealing to the small percentage of
> folks who are after something they can not get for free.

True but we already know that people will pay for a subscription
to what they want. Look at cable TV.

>
> On the other hand, broadband technologies not yet introduced
> (you are not being intelligent by looking only at existing
> technologies) will allow free broadband radio, on demand,
> plus phone, video and messaging on a single hand held
> device. This is when radio moves its distribution to that
> system. And broadband will leapfrog satellite, making it
> obsolete before it is paid for. They are losing oodles of
> cash, you know, and will not make money for years...

I am aware of many tecnologies that are not yet intoduced.
From stuff that is still in the idea stage to trying to work
the bugs out to some the military is working on. The problem
it they are not here, whereas Wi-Fi, WiMax and Satellite are.
The only area I know of off hand that has large scale Wi-Fi
is in Oregon and that is maily because it is a military depot
area. It will take time to build these networks and satellite
will keep on going while they build.
As for losing money, yes they are. I always here that when I
talk to my friends from either company. I've never asked them
what the break even point is, but every business has one and
if they do hit it then things will be fine. If not then they
will be gone.

>
>
> > It is too early to tell what
> > effect XM/Sirius will have on am/fm radio and we wont know
>
> > for sure until we're looking back on it. As more and more
> > cars are coming equipped with satellite radio from the
> > factory I think we may start seeing a slow shift, but it
> > will take time.
>
> It will be over before it begins.

I disagree. The biggest obstacle in my opinion is the cost of
the radios and portability. If they can bring the price down
to something reasonable they will sell more radios. That has
been my main complaint. But price always comes down as the
market matures and more people buy them (almost a catch 22).
For example I bought one of the early DVD burneers when many
people still didnt own a dvd player. It was a 2.4 speed, single
layer dvd-r only recorder and cost me $275. Now you can buy a
16 speed, dual layer, dvd +/-/RW for about $40.
And as for size both XM and Sirius have small walkman/mp3 player
size radios available.
>
> Car listening is only about 30% of total radio listening.
> Broadband devices will be portable, probably with bluetooth
> or other "virtual docking" capability for cars, at home and
> elsewhere... and will kill satellite.

Both companies have radios available that are portable and can
be taken with you and used where you are by using an fm
transmitter or cable connections. Bluetooth is ok but not really
good for broadband.

>
> > As for on demand features. that's fine for video where you
>
> > might focus for 30, 60 minutes, or more but radio is more
>
> > often the back ground noise in our lives it doesnt lend
> > itself to on demand as well, and for those who truly need
> > "on demand" music we have various mp3 players of various
> > sizes.
>
> I see. You don't think that many morning shows and talk
> shows will be more desirable if one can hear them fromt he
> beginning? Music is only a part of radio. In fact, even on
> FM, you realize that most morning shows are really talk
> shows? Oh, and they are free.
>
I don't think most people will really care wether they hear
it from the begining. Most morning show are just entertainment
and can be joined in progress anywhere without much loss. Most
of the talk shows are the same. Do you really have to listen
to every minute of coast to coast? Hell I Love listening to
Rollye James on friday nights. but if I miss some I wont be
that upset, in fact I think Rollye may be more upset than I
am. The only hard core listeners I know of are that have to
have every minute are stern fans and I think any fan like that
is a minority and will have other sources. Rush Limbaugh makes
his shows available for down load to subscribers. So why make
that free when you can get another money stream instead.

Mike Dane
WSTB-FM 88.9
SundayOldiesJukebox.com

 

[MikeDane]

Re: NO

> Hang in there, Mike! We're in the minority here.
>
Now hang on there a second Fonz. I am not agreeing with
your opinion but with your right to say it. I think KM
over stepped the bounds and the whining was just too
much for me so I said my piece and brought it to the
moderators attention.
I agree with just about everyone here as far as a
station losiing money. Thats not what they are for,
but neither should they be greedy.
As for Satellite, thats where I will be heading rather
than listen to what I consider am/fm that sucks like
a bilge pump. The hard part for me is deciding which
one I want being that I have friends on the air at
both companies.
Keep saying your piece. THAT I can support easy.

Mike Dane
WSTB-FM 88.9
SundayOldiesJukebox.com

 

[TheFonz]

Re: NO

> >[ Hang in there, Mike! We're in the minority here.]

> [Now hang on there a second Fonz. I am not agreeing with
> your opinion but with your right to say it.]



I never suggested that you were agreeing with me, Mike. Both of our posts got ripped pretty bad and I was merely supporting yours.

P.S. I have both satellite services. If you're into '50s/early '60s Oldies, XM is the way to go.

 

[OldiesCat]

Program To 55+?

I agree the whole 55+ dilemma is what it is. But it just seems like an awful lot of people with an awful lot of disposable income to spend for the ad community to just ignore. It feels a lot like the thinking that went into older demo programming in the late 70's and early 80's, when Beautiful Music was on it's way out. But, it's NOT the same- these folks are huge in number,
not the doddering old fools retirees seemed to be in the 70's (much healthier),
have much more money to spend, are much more willing to spend it. Seems simple to me, anyway.


>
> Fonz, you bring up the first interesting post on this board
> in a while, but it addresses a topic that has been discussed
> thoroughly for a least a year on this board. David has
> explained that the advertisers are not calling out for 55+
> demo's. Whether we want to agree with this premise, it
> probably is fact. That's the way it is in 2005. But the
> entire broadcast and print industry is feeling the effects
> of satellite and web based services. If you are going at
> this from a listeners perspective who would like to hear
> 50's and 60's oldies, get satellite. Just get it. It has
> what you are searching for if you want to hear oldies. Just
> let the terrestial world beat it out for their targeted
> audiences and see who wins. Satellite has approximetely 20 -
> 30 channels in addition to oldies thatspecifically target
> hip - hop through the 80's. But while terrestial stations
> are trying to make money with Jack formats, if I was a 30
> year old, I'd just turn my FM radio on. It's free.
>

 

[OldiesCat]

yes

I have to agree, K.M. I know I've had to explain things over & over again but figure some of that must be on me, that I wasn't clear enough previously (or, more simply, that not everybody goes through every post on every thread- they just didn't see everything).

It may need to be discussed a lot because it's an important issue for many in our industry today. It's obviously a subject of great passion, so (as I see in the Jack discussions), let's have at it!

:-}


>
> isn't that what a discussion board is for? to discuss things and maybe learn?
>
> >
> > And that is AFTER it has been explained to you over and over and over.
> So then either explain it again or ignore it.
>
> >
> > Go listen to your satellite radio and leave us alone. No
> > more clueless discussions from you, please.
>
> Then how about no more cluelessness from you, please.
>
> >
> > You continue at the risk of my requesting deletion of your
> > posts in the future. (And before you say "I didn't break
> > any rules", note that moderators have the right to delete
> > entire threads if they duplicate currently- or
> > recently-discussed topics, and this topic is one that has
> > been discussed TO DEATH.)

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Program To 55+?

> I agree the whole 55+ dilemma is what it is. But it just
> seems like an awful lot of people with an awful lot of
> disposable income to spend for the ad community to just
> ignore. It feels a lot like the thinking that went into
> older demo programming in the late 70's and early 80's, when
> Beautiful Music was on it's way out. But, it's NOT the
> same- these folks are huge in number,
> not the doddering old fools retirees seemed to be in the
> 70's (much healthier),
> have much more money to spend, are much more willing to
> spend it. Seems simple to me, anyway.
>

It does defy logic. However, the things I have been told by folks in marketing at the brand level is that they find in research that brand loyalty builds with age if the current product is satisfying a basic need. So, it takes a lot more advertising to achieve trial and even more to get usage, making it too expensive to justify the investment.

Further, the post/retirement figures often quoted are averages. The number that should be looked at are medians. It only takes the Forbes 400 richest people to take 20% of the buying power away from seniors. In fact, a huge percentage live off social security alone, and the median pre-retirement savings, mostly in home equity, is less than $100,000.

The other thing is that advertisers who do go after older consumers tend to like very target-specific media, like direct mail, specialty magazines, etc.

 

[bierkenstock]

What Goes Around, Comes Around

The strategy of marketing to targeted demographics started in the '60's. The people who pushed this strategy were young ad agency execs - leading edge, Yuppie baby boomers.
Remember, the generation that said "don't trust anyone over 30."
Radio stations dropped MOR: Cool.
(10 years later, "WKRP in Cincinnati" does a show about this - "Heck, no, we won't go" - and boomers are still laughing.)
TV networks cancelled programs with audiences "too old," or "too rural:" No problem.
Now the leading edge of the baby boom is about to turn 60, and the middle of the boom is passing 50. The shoe is on the other foot and the shoe pinches.
Well, PBS now does pledge-week Oldies specials - just like they do with Lawrence Welk.

Meantime, the myth persists that ratings = $.
No, ratings = ratings.
Sales = $.
Flip from oldies to sports and make more money with lower ratings.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: What Went Around Seems to Keep Coming Back.

> The strategy of marketing to targeted demographics started
> in the '60's. The people who pushed this strategy were
> young ad agency execs - leading edge, Yuppie baby boomers.

Strategy is done at the corporate level by the advertiser. This includes lifestyle, age, sex and socioeconomic level targeting.
>
> TV networks cancelled programs with audiences "too old," or
> "too rural:" No problem.

Nope. Because advertisers had specific targets, and they tell their ad agencies what to go for.

> Now the leading edge of the baby boom is about to turn 60,
> and the middle of the boom is passing 50. The shoe is on
> the other foot and the shoe pinches.

Advertisers still do not use radio to reach 55+ listeners. If they do target this group. they use other media predominantly.

> Well, PBS now does pledge-week Oldies specials - just like
> they do with Lawrence Welk.

The don't sell spots to agencies.
>
> Meantime, the myth persists that ratings = $.

Ratings in the right demo with the right sellers = $.

> No, ratings = ratings.

Without ratings, there is no way to justify an agency CPP.

> Sales = $.

Same at WalMart or McDonalds or Ford. And all of these and all the rest know where the best opportunities are.

> Flip from oldies to sports and make more money with lower
> ratings.

Wrong. Flip from oldies with mostly 55+ listeners to sports with a desirable 25-49 male base and efficient delivery with no spillage and you have money. Add in the fact that sports stations capture not just ad dollars but sports marketing dollars, and there is a bigger revenue base available than for any other format.

 

[oldies_listener]

Re: What Went Around Seems to Keep Coming Back.

> > TV networks cancelled programs with audiences "too old,"
> > or "too rural:" No problem.
>
> Nope. Because advertisers had specific targets, and they
> tell their ad agencies what to go for.

Was the cancellation of the Beverly Hillbillies by CBS while still in the top ten and other "rural" themed shows a one time exception? I have read several times that Mr. Paley grew tired of being ribbed by his peers for this type of programing, even though the network and programs were considered successful.

 

[KMRichards]

Re: What Went Around Seems to Keep Coming Back.

> > > TV networks cancelled programs with audiences "too old,"
>
> > > or "too rural:" No problem.
> >
> > Nope. Because advertisers had specific targets, and they
> > tell their ad agencies what to go for.
>
> Was the cancellation of the Beverly Hillbillies by CBS while
> still in the top ten and other "rural" themed shows a one
> time exception? I have read several times that Mr. Paley
> grew tired of being ribbed by his peers for this type of
> programing, even though the network and programs were
> considered successful.

Those shows, as well as a few others cancelled at the same time, were skewing older, and even though they were still making money for the network, there were more viewers over 45 than under. CBS made the decision on that basis.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: What Went Around Seems to Keep Coming Back.

>
> Those shows, as well as a few others cancelled at the same
> time, were skewing older, and even though they were still
> making money for the network, there were more viewers over
> 45 than under. CBS made the decision on that basis.
>

I believe the same thing happened with "Gunsmoke" too.

This issue, I think, for a TV net (and we just happen to have three of those in stock...)is that having programs that skew in the opposite direction of the one wanted for the whole network causes loss of audience and revenue outside the "offending" show.

I am aware of a network that wanted to move its sports play by play and features to another net because they felt the heavy concentration of sports interupted the women's appeal.

 

[Oldbones]

Re: What Went Around Seems to Keep Coming Back.

> > Well, PBS now does pledge-week Oldies specials - just like
>
> > they do with Lawrence Welk.
>
> The don't sell spots to agencies.
>

Well, the line between "commercials" and "underwriting announcements" is getting blurrier by the day. My guess is that the "sales force" at public radio is every bit as aggressive as that of a commercial station.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: What Went Around Seems to Keep Coming Back.

> > > Well, PBS now does pledge-week Oldies specials - just
> like
> >
> > > they do with Lawrence Welk.
> >
> > The don't sell spots to agencies.
> >
>
> Well, the line between "commercials" and "underwriting
> announcements" is getting blurrier by the day. My guess is
> that the "sales force" at public radio is every bit as
> aggressive as that of a commercial station.

The sales contacts and sales methods are different. Underwriting is often a public relations budget function at companies, and not handled through agencies.

 

[TheFonz]

Re: Program To 55+?

> [I agree the whole 55+ dilemma is what it is. But it just
> seems like an awful lot of people with an awful lot of
> disposable income to spend for the ad community to just
> ignore.]


I just got back from a trip to Las Vegas that I booked from an ad in my local newspaper. Thank goodness SOMEBODY still advertises to the 55+ consumer.

 

[KMRichards]

Re: Program To 55+?

> I just got back from a trip to Las Vegas that I booked from
> an ad in my local newspaper. Thank goodness SOMEBODY still
> advertises to the 55+ consumer.

One ad, specialized to 55+, amongst all the other ads in a newspaper that are targeted younger, does not bolster your arguments here against ad agencies not wanting the older demos.

Nice try, though.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[TheFonz]

Re: Program To 55+?

> > I just got back from a trip to Las Vegas that I booked
> from
> > an ad in my local newspaper. Thank goodness SOMEBODY
> still
> > advertises to the 55+ consumer.
>
> [One ad, specialized to 55+, amongst all the other ads in a
> newspaper that are targeted younger, does not bolster your
> arguments here against ad agencies not wanting the older
> demos.
>
> Nice try, though.]


You missed the point. The ad WASN'T specialized. But there was an awful lot of grey hair on that airplane! If radio was honest, they'd admit that they couldn't compete with newspapers for today's 55+ consumers when those consumers were 25+. That, not age, was and still is radio's problem. As another poster in this thread alluded to, advertisers DO advertise to 55+ consumers. They just don't do it on the radio.