Slooooowwwwww

[Smiths and Smittys]

Somewhat sad state of the activity on this Tucson thread. I know things are not nearly as exciting as the old days but no posts in over a month

Any thoughts on who may be buying the Scripps radio stations? LOT of rumors but no action!
Scripps radio in Tulsa sold to a mom and pop who owned TV in that market as well.
This has to have been one of the quietest company station sales in history. Seems that Scripps Cincinnati is very good at keeping their mouth shut.

New afternoon guy on KRQ Nick Wise.

Former KRQ on air PD Chris p on 97.5 the VIbe doing mornings.

Dwayne former HOT 98.3, turned KRQ now back to afternoons on HOT.

Any Bobby Rich (and or Brad) sightings?

 

[kwthom]

I must have finally hit that demographic to realize just how - um, how do I say this gracefully - unoriginal - radio has become in this region over the last thirty-odd years.

Simply astounding.

 

[TheBigA]

I must have finally hit that demographic to realize just how - um, how do I say this gracefully - unoriginal - radio has become in this region over the last thirty-odd years

Or perhaps you've hit that demographic where it doesn't matter.

 

[landtuna]

I must have finally hit that demographic to realize just how - um, how do I say this gracefully - unoriginal - radio has become in this region over the last thirty-odd years.

Simply astounding.

Having grown up in Tucson during the 50's and 60's I understand exactly how you feel.

 

[CAVEMANager]

The discussion of radio programming has gone dead because there is precious little left to discuss. What once was an exciting medium with live and local personalities and promotions has become incredibly dull and lifeless. Local people have been replaced with syndicated junk because it is cheaper. Consolidation has taken away most competition in programming. The result is that satellite service and digital music sites are killing radio. But the radio industry has the solution: More consolidation and the NAB is backing that crazy concept. The real enemy of the radio industry is the radio industry itself. That plus an FCC that takes its orders from big business. From the chairman on down the commission are political appointees who couldn't care less about the listening public.

 

[TheBigA]

From the chairman on down the commission are political appointees who couldn't care less about the listening public.

Yet what stations do the listening public choose? The ones owned by iHeart! The top 2 stations in Tucson are iHeart stations.

https://ratings.****************/cgi-bin/rol.exe/arb207

Who elects the government? The listening public! What did the party in power promise the listening public? Deregulation of everything. I'm not making this up. The people have a choice, not only in the media they listen to, but in the elected officials who run the government. What you're getting is what the listening public wants.

 

[CAVEMANager]

When's the last time you heard a federal office seeker campaign that if elected he will make radio programming better? Radio programming is not a hot political issue except maybe at the NAB convention. At the same time it is no secret that large group operators are often heavy contributors to political campaigns and they expect something in return. Moreover, companies like iHeart dish out vast amounts of programming that is sympathetic to the Republican Party.

In the most recent Tucson ratings available all the Cumulus stations are delisted most likely because they chose not to pay Nielsen. It is a fact that iHeart, Cumulus, Scripps and Lotus own all the most powerful stations in this market. So it should come as no surprise that one of those stations will come out on top. If some small operator could own one of the high powered FM stations the ratings result might be different. To suggest that the public likes whatever comes out on top is presumptuous when the choice is between low budget station A and low budget station B.

 

[davideduardo]

When's the last time you heard a federal office seeker campaign that if elected he will make radio programming better?

Even back when we had to do the onerous community leader ascertainment interviews (Quote from a suburban mayor upon asked for an ascertainment interview, "Are you another one of those stupid a-holes from a radio station? I have already talked to more than ten of you and it's always the same question.") programming was not on the mind of leaders and politicians.

Radio programming is not a hot political issue except maybe at the NAB convention.

It's not a hot issue there, either. Successful programmers don't give away their techniques or tricks.

At the same time it is no secret that large group operators are often heavy contributors to political campaigns and they expect something in return.

Just like pharmaceutical companies, airlines, car manufacturers, the farm lobby, the chemical industry and all the rest.

Moreover, companies like iHeart dish out vast amounts of programming that is sympathetic to the Republican Party.

The higher percentage of conservative talk on the radio is due to the fact that it still gets ratings and sells. Air America did neither. This is economics 101: supply and demand.

In the most recent Tucson ratings available all the Cumulus stations are delisted most likely because they chose not to pay Nielsen.

They only buy the full Spring and Fall books, but not Winter and Summer and the trends. But the ad agencies get the full data.

It is a fact that iHeart, Cumulus, Scripps and Lotus own all the most powerful stations in this market. So it should come as no surprise that one of those stations will come out on top.

Toyota and Honda have better cars than Fiat and Dodge. So they sell more. Consumers seem to be quite able to figure out the two words "good" and ""bad" all on their own.

If some small operator could own one of the high powered FM stations the ratings result might be different.

It might, and then it might not. The big operators have several tiers of management talent and pay better...

To suggest that the public likes whatever comes out on top is presumptuous when the choice is between low budget station A and low budget station B.

The public has no knowledge of how much it costs. They know if it sucks bad or sounds good.

 

[landtuna]

I wonder though, just what percentage of listeners have had it with pablum radio and don't bother to tune in any longer but still use some form of alternative (music stick, CD, DVD, streaming). I cannot remember when I have had the radio in my car powered on. And I never listen to radio at home. But I do listen to music.

 

[davideduardo]

I wonder though, just what percentage of listeners have had it with pablum radio and don't bother to tune in any longer but still use some form of alternative (music stick, CD, DVD, streaming). I cannot remember when I have had the radio in my car powered on. And I never listen to radio at home. But I do listen to music.

In 1985: 95% of people listened to radio weekly. Today it is between 92% and 93%. The greatest attrition is among teen and older seniors, but of course radio does not target either group.

 

[landtuna]

In 1985: 95% of people listened to radio weekly. Todo it is between 92% and 93%. The greatest attrition is among teen and older seniors, but of course radio does not target either group.

That statistic is virtually meaningless.

What are the TSL numbers?

 

[TheBigA]

That statistic is virtually meaningless.

What are the TSL numbers?

If you're unwilling to accept the audience numbers, what would make TSL numbers (from the same source) any more meaningful?

 

[davideduardo]

That statistic is virtually meaningless.

What are the TSL numbers?

TSL has declined in the PPM markets significantly, owing mostly to the PPM methodology. Between the last diary book in each of the 48 PPM markets and the first PPM book, we saw a roughly 40% decline in TSL due entirely to measurement being done electronically rather than being memory based.

There have been additional declines in TSL due to all the new options in entertainment. In the past, we could benchmark such declines to the advent of video gaming reaching some kind of mass acceptance (you can't listen to radio, generally, while gaming) and even the spread of music and talk programming on cable TV.

The point is that, while a combination of methodology (the PPM) and new technology has redefined TSL, just about the same number of people use radio regularly as ever before.

And, as I said, the greatest reduction in listeners and listening is among teens and older seniors, neither being a group that radio specifically targets.

 

[CTListener]

TSL has declined in the PPM markets significantly, owing mostly to the PPM methodology. Between the last diary book in each of the 48 PPM markets and the first PPM book, we saw a roughly 40% decline in TSL due entirely to measurement being done electronically rather than being memory based.

There have been additional declines in TSL due to all the new options in entertainment. In the past, we could benchmark such declines to the advent of video gaming reaching some kind of mass acceptance (you can't listen to radio, generally, while gaming) and even the spread of music and talk programming on cable TV.

The point is that, while a combination of methodology (the PPM) and new technology has redefined TSL, just about the same number of people use radio regularly as ever before.

And, as I said, the greatest reduction in listeners and listening is among teens and older seniors, neither being a group that radio specifically targets.

But if people are using radio less, that means less of a chance to be exposed to a given ad, and an even slimmer chance of repeated exposure -- which is how an ad makes an impression. Repeating the party line of 90+ percent of people still "using" radio is disingenuous. The purpose of commercial radio is (duh) commerce. The person who now listens to three hours of commercial radio a week but used to listen to six hours of radio before getting into gaming, Netflix, Pandora or whatever is not someone whose radio use is something to crow about. It is a cause for serious concern.

 

[TheBigA]

There have been additional declines in TSL due to all the new options in entertainment.

BTST those new entertainment options have also seen declines in TSL. Triton reports that Pandora has had a 60% decline in TSL.

But if people are using radio less, that means less of a chance to be exposed to a given ad, and an even slimmer chance of repeated exposure -- which is how an ad makes an impression.

Which is why ad campaigns are built around multiple exposures to an ad, maybe four an hour, to reach the desired audience.

 

[davideduardo]

But if people are using radio less, that means less of a chance to be exposed to a given ad, and an even slimmer chance of repeated exposure -- which is how an ad makes an impression. Repeating the party line of 90+ percent of people still "using" radio is disingenuous. The purpose of commercial radio is (duh) commerce. The person who now listens to three hours of commercial radio a week but used to listen to six hours of radio before getting into gaming, Netflix, Pandora or whatever is not someone whose radio use is something to crow about. It is a cause for serious concern.

That is not a valid argument. Radio is priced on delivery, with rates proportional to the number of people listening.

Ad agencies buy based on ratings, not share. The public-release data seen by most is expressed in share, which is not a buying metric.

For anyone unfamiliar with the difference, one rating point represents 1% of the population in the age range being studied. A station with a rating of 1 in men 18-49 will reach 1% of all men in that age group each time the ad is run.

Share is a percentage of those listening to the radio at the time a spot is run. Share is usually about 10 times bigger than rating for a given station.

Time buyers set a goal of how many Gross Ratings Points (often called "Grips") they want in the market. They also have a goal of how many times they want the average radio listener to hear a spot. Let's say they want to reach 60% of the 18-49 men at an average weekly frequency of three. They then know, by analyzing the market data and trying different combinations of stations, how many Grips they need in total, and how many per station.

The station with higher TSL will get fewer spots on the buy but the client will get the same number of Grips and impressions.

 

[landtuna]

If you're unwilling to accept the audience numbers, what would make TSL numbers (from the same source) any more meaningful?

It isn't the numbers.....it's their category. Someone whose alarm clock goes off in the morning and is on only a minute or two is not the same "radio listener" who gets to work and plugs in their earbuds for several hours.

 

[landtuna]

And, as I said, the greatest reduction in listeners and listening is among teens and older seniors, neither being a group that radio specifically targets.

I can agree with what you say but also believe you are making my point.

Back in the 50's some radio was directed at teens and very young adults (I was one of them). Virtually each morning of my high school days began with a discussion of a program heard the night before. Every weekend crowds of teens and young adults would gather where ever the popular DJ's were doing on-site broadcasts. Searchlights filled the night sky with their locations. The DJ you heard on the radio would show up for a movie intro at the local theater or spin records at the local roller rink or even show up at birthday parties. None of that exists today.

Seniors still tended to listen to programs which became popular in the 40's (or earlier) like Benny, Godfrey and the concerts. The news programs of the day had actual news and were more convenient to listen to that trying to catch 15 minutes of national news on the TV. There were even inspirational programs on which were not merely pleas for cash donations to mega churches. Virtually none of this exists today.

Radio claims it is in financial trouble and technology trouble but yet has almost completely abandoned a share of its audience. As a percentage of listeners both teens/young adults and seniors made up a share which should not have been discarded. Other music services have discovered how to monetize those demos even though the amount might not be a lucrative as it once was.

 

[davideduardo]

Radio claims it is in financial trouble and technology trouble but yet has almost completely abandoned a share of its audience. As a percentage of listeners both teens/young adults and seniors made up a share which should not have been discarded. Other music services have discovered how to monetize those demos even though the amount might not be a lucrative as it once was.

That's a faulty premise. Radio has not abandoned older listeners and teens... advertisers have shifted the way they market to teens and have removed seniors from most marketing campaigns save for those for products strictly aimed at seniors.

So there is no money for radio, even if they try to serve either teens or seniors. In general, there is zero teen money in all size markets at the local level (meaning local direct buys and nationally placed local spot radio). And, while in some smaller markets there is an ability to sell 35-64 to direct accounts, even in larger markets like Miami and Phoenix with publicized senior communities, the retirement crowd is such a small and specific audience that marketing is often targeted in very geographically specific ways.

Teens use on demand services because they both have the time to spend on customizing playlists and naming songs they want to hear one by one... and Spotify and the like are very important to their lives. Seniors similarly can find paid devices, such as XM / Sirius, that cater to them. But these are paid services. Radio still remains an effective medium to reach those from 18 to 55 as it has almost total reach and costs are very viable as part of a media mix.

 

[TheBigA]

The DJ you heard on the radio would show up for a movie intro at the local theater or spin records at the local roller rink or even show up at birthday parties. None of that exists today.

As I've said many times to you before, it still happens today in your town. I can tell you the next time it will happen, and where it will be. But because you don't attend any of these events, you never see them. That doesn't mean they don't happen. They do. Maybe not at the roller rink or malt shop, because they're gone. But if you go to the state fair, the mall, or even a concert at the arena, there will be DJs from the local stations playing music and handing out t-shirts.