SMOOTH JAZZ NUMBERS ARE UP!

[jeffdfw]

http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/Format_RoomPage.aspx?FormatID=12 8)

 

[txchipk]

The problem the format has been having is those stations have been the exception rather than the norm. When you roll up all smooth jazz stations rated, the format has been rapidly aging. Remember, KOAI had fallen out of the top 15 in the 25-54 group prior to its flip.

Arbitron has a section on their website where you can see the make-up of each format over time: http://wargod.arbitron.com/scripts/ndb/audience2.asp (select smooth jazz/NAC from the format menu).

It tracks formats from the fall 1998 book to the winter 2007 book. From fall 1998 to that last book, the percentage of 55+ has gone from 25% to 44%. During that time, the number of folks between 25-44 has shrunk from 42% to 24%.

Why did CBS try Movin'...nationally only 11% of listeners to rhythmic AC in the winter book were not in the 18-49 or 25-54 groups. If KMVK mirrors the national trend, even though its 12+ numbers are down, it's saleable demos would be slightly better than what KOAI finished with.

Same old problem...its hard to sustain a format if advertisers don't value the audience. It's the problem classical has long had...now 70% 55+ up from 57% in the fall of 1998...and thus now on only a few commercial signals across the country. It's the reason most oldies stations have long eliminated 50s oldies and are phasing out most of the 60s oldies.

 

[little1]

Well said ChipK...

And this gets back to the 'what would you rather have, ratings or revenue' question...

Well, just a reminder, you can't pay your rent or your bar bill at Louie's with ratings points...

Lower ratings for "Movin" but with better demos than the Oasis had could easily translate into more money...

 

[dantheman]

Hello All,
ChipK...you are in left field. I have a problem with you talking about ratings down on Smooth Jazz format 107.5 The Oasis before flip to Movin. I see the problem was CBS fliped the station for NO REASON!!! KOAI ratings were 3's share most all ratings months TOP 15 in DFW market. The problem was CBS was trying a format that CBS radio surveryed people over the phone about 1 year ago before flip. I know this because I got the phone survery. I like Movin format but I did not want to filp Smooth Jazz KOAI 107.5. I like to have heard Movin on 105.3 or 103.7 not 107.5. You and CBS are wrong about ratings...ratings was great on 107.5 Oasis...they did not need to flip this channel. Now, CBS need to right a wrong and do it FAST!!!!

Dan-The-MAN!!
The North Texas Radio Man!!!

The problem the format has been having is those stations have been the exception rather than the norm. When you roll up all smooth jazz stations rated, the format has been rapidly aging. Remember, KOAI had fallen out of the top 15 in the 25-54 group prior to its flip.

Arbitron has a section on their website where you can see the make-up of each format over time: http://wargod.arbitron.com/scripts/ndb/audience2.asp (select smooth jazz/NAC from the format menu).

It tracks formats from the fall 1998 book to the winter 2007 book. From fall 1998 to that last book, the percentage of 55+ has gone from 25% to 44%. During that time, the number of folks between 25-44 has shrunk from 42% to 24%.

Why did CBS try Movin'...nationally only 11% of listeners to rhythmic AC in the winter book were not in the 18-49 or 25-54 groups. If KMVK mirrors the national trend, even though its 12+ numbers are down, it's saleable demos would be slightly better than what KOAI finished with.

Same old problem...its hard to sustain a format if advertisers don't value the audience. It's the problem classical has long had...now 70% 55+ up from 57% in the fall of 1998...and thus now on only a few commercial signals across the country. It's the reason most oldies stations have long eliminated 50s oldies and are phasing out most of the 60s oldies.

 

[little1]

Dan, if I send you a dollar will you use it to buy a clue?

Chip is right on the money.

The Oasis may have been top 15 in the 12+ ratings, but no serious radio person puts much stock in those. 12+ isn't a 'sell-able' demo, and for the vast majority of us (those that work at commercial stations) 12+ ratings mean nothing, the focus is on the 'money demo' of 25-54.

And as Chip pointed out, (using actual facts and numbers, and not just opinion)is that the audience for the Oasis (and smooth jazz nationwide) is getting older.

Radio is about more than ratings. It's being able to sell those ratings and that audience enough to pay the bills, pull your weight, etc...And that's where the Oasis failed...

 

[jeff715]

Yep! Dan is right! The peeps with the $$$ are 35+. That is who the Oasis was catering to. Look at the numbers for San Diego, LA & Chicago. MOViN' sucks unless you are 19. CBS in Dallas (Kurt Johnson in particular) is F'd up! (Right now they are in Costa Rica with their sponsors kissing a$$). Like WCBS in NY, The Oasis was an institution here. Much more so than Jack, Lite, MOViN or even Live 105.3. K-LUV is the only thing they going for them and someone WILL step up and bring smooth jazz back to FW/D. (That's right I said FW/D). Our beloved Lynn Briggs went to the Vegas Oasis and their numbers shot through the roof! Some PD is bound to wake up and realize that fresh consultants and phone interviews do not represent the actual feelings of most listeners. Like Mayor Bloomberg said in NY "I will never listen to that station WCBS again" when it flipped and that was on target. Man I am glad I have XM. Although I still have a love for FM - I think I am done here. Enjoy your Spanish, Classic Country, Religeous and other inane FMs. FM is the new AM. Out.

 

[little1]

And for those who consistently bitch about why we have so many talk stations and so many sports stations, let me remind you of this. The top 2 billing stations in the market are WBAP and KTCK.

And while WBAP does well 12+, KTCK doesn't break the top ten 12+...

 

[Robert Bass]

And for those who consistently bitch about why we have so many talk stations and so many sports stations, let me remind you of this. The top 2 billing stations in the market are WBAP and KTCK.

And while WBAP does well 12+, KTCK doesn't break the top ten 12+...

Sports in this market sucks anyway. The Mav's gave us a huge tease, The Rangers are hopeless and The Cowboys haven't won a super bowl since the 90's, much less advanced past the first round of the playoffs.

How any sports station in this market can survive right now, is beyond me. What are they doing, clinging to national sports? That's just sad.

R

 

[KPLEXCOMPLEX]

Unfortunately Little 1 is right. The real estate agents which run radio now days,don't really care about who is number 1,2,etc,its all about what fool they can con to buy ads. If they sell a lot of ads the station is a success. Its like selling a sanitary landfill to some idiot and calling it a mansion.Radio quit being radio along time ago when program content and listener input mattered. Now its cattle call "focus groups"with stale sandwiches,with dixie cups of soda. It used to be (as noted before) you sold your spots around the program,now you program around sales.

 

[txchipk]

Yep! Dan is right! The peeps with the $$$ are 35+. That is who the Oasis was catering to. Look at the numbers for San Diego, LA & Chicago. MOViN' sucks unless you are 19. CBS in Dallas (Kurt Johnson in particular) is F'd up! (Right

You can look at WNUA, KIFM, and KTWV's numbers if you want. I was suggesting you look at all the smooth jazz stations. If you want to use the ratings of 5% of the stations that ratings are collected on and toss out the other 95% of the stations, to me, it makes the argument a little weak. The link in my post was the roll-up of all stations in the format. More importantly in KOAI's case, KOAI was not performing anywhere near to where WNUA, KIFM, and KTWV were. If it were, it would still be here.

Ironically, it seems CBS chose its new format using the same approach you are using. It bought into the "Movin'" concept based on the success of KQMV in Seattle. Thinking KMVK will work here based on that is as non-sensical as saying KOAI should be back because KIFM in San Diego does well.

I'm not endorsing the change to KMVK...I'm just pointing out the reality of the decision. The smooth jazz format has been struggling in recent years since the audience has been aging. Like it or not, advertisers aren't wild about people over 55.

I don't work in radio and never have, so I'm sure someone who does can correct me if I wrong. But it is "marketing 101" that it is harder to reach older folks for a variety of reasons...they have life experience and tend to be skeptical of advertising touting the wonders of a new product; they also usually have higher brand loyalty to products they have used all their lives (no reason to change if they are happy); etc. So, if you are going to advertise to that audience, it generally takes *many* more ad impressions to convince them to change to use your product than it would be to change a 30 year old's mind. So, it is going to be easier to get a sale from a younger group. Thus, advertisers put a premium on younger folks...and why stations with 55+ audiences generally have to sell spots for less. The younger audience is also desirable for the reverse...keep selling to young folks to build a habit of using the product so they develop brand loyalty and keep using it the rest of their lives since people don't tend to change brands later in life. If you're airtime is worth less to advertisers because the audience is aging, your revenue declines.

As for 35+ having money...a lot of seniors have a lot of money, but for reasons above, they aren't widely targeted. If you can hit the sweet spot of 25-54s who have lots of income, you hit the jackpot...i.e. KTCK, whose 12+ numbers aren't that exciting, but whose 25-54s numbers are, including a lot of upper income guys.

Again, not being a radio person, I don't understand why you wouldn't try to figure out effective ways to reach 55+, since there are a lot of them. Obviously, the traditional approach that has been used in the past isn't working. Since there is a large audience out there that is 55+ and it is getting larger, it seems like there would be some incentive to figure out a way to capture revenue from them.

Back to smooth jazz specifically...the aging of the audience, and reduction of revenue that would go with it, is having an effect. Even in places where the local smooth jazz station has not changed formats, a lot of those local stations have been cutting costs by letting go local talent and replacing them with cheaper syndicated fare. Even in markets where the format has come back on another station, the new station is typically heavily voice-tracked or syndicated...Milwaukee being the most recent example. The new smooth jazz outlet (replacing an even older skewing classical format on a class A signal) is just running a satellite feed.

Also, I know it is fun to beat up on corporate ownership, but I don't think there are many operators, regardless of size, that don't care about revenue. Nor do I suspect this is a recent phenomenon. Even mom and pop operations don't want falling revenue...they have employees to pay, bills to pay, their own income, etc. I imagine people who work in radio don't want to work for radio stations in decline either since it limits the chance of a raise or, worse, staying employed if the revenue coming in can't sustain the operation (i.e. axed for a syndicated show). I can't imagine most mom and pop outfits even want to see flat revenues since there is inflation to factor in (higher minimum wage, rising electric bills, etc.). The problem may be worse at a big corporate station cluster where you have to please stockholders.

 

[little1]

See, most of the stations I've worked for in this market haven't programmed around sales, as much as programmed with an eye toward what is sellable.

Luckily I've spent very little time at the stations that have to whore themselves out to the So and So mortgage hour, Cartalk with the local dealer, or (my personal current favorite) 990's Cigar talk with the dude that runs the cigar shop, who (along with the nail salon) are the only 2 non-network commercials I ever hear them play...

To me the big difference is that when you program around sales, sales figures out wht they can sell, and then you program it. For example, a station i used to work at did a ski report. There's very few ski areas in texas (I'd guess), and from what I remember, it's a relatively small % of the listenership that actually flys to Colorado, Utah, etc to go skiing...So why did we do a ski report? Because sales could sell it to the local ski merchants and make money off it. THAT is programming around sales.

Much different from programming off what you can sell. Let's use KAAM as an example. They COULD go all big bands- god knows there's enough Tommy Dorsey, Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, etc to go around...But to do that would appeal to a very old audience, and the few and far between younger peeps who like that music.

But by playing "big bands and great singers" (as they positioned themselves backin teh Bonneville days) they play some 40's big band, but also plays the Sinatra, Bennett, etc singers of the 50's and 60's...By appealing to peeps from 3 generations (40-50-60's) they've effectively tripled their potential audience, no? THAT'S programming to what you can sell.

ANd it works the same for any station. Let's say you're going to flip a station. And you look around and you think that the 2 stations with the highest ratings that are vulnerable to competition are (let's just say) KVIL and Kiss 106. KVIl's demo are stronger in the women 25-54, which a TON of advertisers crave (they buy all teh grocerys, etc) while much of KISS's audience is 12-18, a demo that most advertisers generally ignore.

Given those choices, do you guys not see the difference in programming what is sell-able? I want to pay my bills. I'm going to go with teh audience that I think I can sell more ads with, the women 25-54....That's not letting sales drive programming, not by a long shot...

 

[little1]

How any sports station in this market can survive right now, is beyond me. What are they doing, clinging to national sports? That's just sad.

R

Chip touches on why so many sports stations can survive. Because almost all of their audience is men 25-54. So if you're selling trucks, oil changes, beer, mens suits, etc, you have a very 'pure' audience on a sports station...
(i.e. buy a music station that's 60/40 male/female and you're effectively wasting 40% of yoru budget on people with ovaries who aren't your target market)

WBAP is the top biller in teh market. And you have KLIF, KRLD, KSKY, etc all trying to take a slice of their big pie...
Same with the Ticket. They're usually top 5, if not 2 or 3 in billing. If you're trying to make money, do you go after the station that's billing #10 or 12, or #1 or #2?

Getting half of #10 might be the same as getting 10% of #1, know what I mean? And which do you think is easier, getting half of all a statiosn advertisers or peeling off a few (with lower rates, better service, free remotes, discounted live spots, etc) from the big dog in town?

 

[Robert Bass]

I know this will stray off topic just a bit, but I have a question. Would it be fair to assume that 35+ would be difficult to reach, from the standpoint of their income vs expenses? In otherwords, I would guess people in their 30's and 40's have families to raise, probably one or two mortgages to pay off, etc etc etc.

Seems to me those demos have less disposable income than 55+.

R

 

[little1]

I think the point is that they may have less disposable income, but the advertisers are trying to get that disposable income that they do have.

Where very few advertisers are trying to get the income of the 55+ set.

And you can argue that point to death, but it still drives much of the industry. If you're in the buisness to make money, you've got to sell ads. And while yes, there are the buick and caddy dealers, teh cruise sellers, etc, that are marketing to 55+, there's a whole lot more companies selling to 25-54...

(And I think you're making a bad assumption- while yes, the 35+ may have more expenses, that's also most people's prime earning years (and spending years) They're getting new/better jobs every few years, making more money, etc... And they're spending that money buying kids clothes, buying mini vans, school supplies, etc etc...versus the 50+ who's probably risen as far as he's going to, now saving more for retirement, spending more on medical bills, spending on insurance, etc etc...)

 

[Robert Bass]

They're getting new/better jobs every few years, making more money, etc...

Except people like me, who have been employed at the same place since 1990. Of course I don't have kids, so that's one less expense for me to worry about.

R