Stupid WJZL! They are going to change without any streaming! Never got to hear them! I might as well give up on stupid radio stations streaming. They don't contact people back and they don't stream. So what good are they? They are BS! Why have smooth jazz on if it wasn't going to work out?
-
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
Stupid WJZL 92.9!
- Thread starter icycool7227
- Start date
icycool7227 said:
Are you saying that WJZL flipped formats? I haven't been able to find out anything. According to Wikipedia, they have new call letters WLMI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WJZL
I wrote to them a couple of times before and they wrote back, but this was a couple of years ago.
You know if I was switching formats of a station I would do it for a month in advance and some of the new format. Then take off the streaming if money is the issue. It's not fair that they have a station far away and nobody else gets to hear it.
If a station chooses to stream or not it doesn't make them stupid.
It's a "radio" station not an internet station.
Some stations choose to also have a web presence. For many stations this is not profit maker. Nearly all local advertisers could care less about reaching someone 1200 miles away.
It's a "radio" station not an internet station.
Some stations choose to also have a web presence. For many stations this is not profit maker. Nearly all local advertisers could care less about reaching someone 1200 miles away.
pbf1 said:
Let's just say that Internet radio station operators are not "stupid" enough to run a traditional "radio station" for a year, let alone a week. Egos, politics, payola, balance sheets that leave you drowning in a sea of red? No thanks. There is something to be said for being your own boss, being completely accountable for your programming, and doing it at a mere fraction of the cost of running a terrestrial radio station. Internet radio is more than another choice---it is the future. Sure, there are and will continue to be challenges to monetizing it, particularly in this economy. But the trends are clear---listeners are flocking to Internet radio in droves, and for good reason. Better programming, less talk, few if any spots---all of which result in a better listening experience.
AC Tones said:
Balance sheets, sure, but not necessarily in a sea of red. The rest, a gross generalization.
AC Tones said:
Sure, it sounds like fun! Providing that you choose to be statistically irrelevant and honestly do not care how many people are listening to your internet radio station.
AC Tones said:
Agreed. Today's over-the-air broadcasters as well as internet-only program providers will likely embrace multi-platform delivery
AC Tones said:
Agreed. It's a challenge faced by AM and FM radio, as well as internet program providers.
AC Tones said:
Perhaps, but not uniformly rejecting AM and FM programming, either.
AC Tones said:
Subjective, not fact.
AC Tones said:
Obviously. Few internet-only program providers can afford to hire intelligent, interesting music presenters, who, in my opinion, can actually make a music show far more engaging than just music alone.
AC Tones said:
Well, of course not! Not until listenership reaches a critical mass meaningful enough to make buying spots or potential "click-throughs" on the stream worthwhile.
AC Tones said:
In your opinion.
Nick Summers
Hey Nick. With all due respect, these are not just my opinions. They are shared by others who spent decades in radio, or are still in radio on some level. And I think generalizations are applicable here, as they can be supported by trends and facts. I am not speaking specifically to what is happening at The Oasis. You would know better than I. But many stations are/were leveraged and bleeding, particularly when it comes to this format. In general, declining ad revenue and overhead is a recipe for seeing red, which is why giants like WQCD, KKSF, and WNUA as we knew them are no more (and less relevant players continue to fall). Are you going to tell me that stations flip because they are making tons of money? And here is a news flash: Listeners don't want spots, and that IS a fact, particularly if the product is mediocre. So broadcasters (Internet or otherwise) will have to find alternative ways to generate revenue to support their operations. Even if my numbers were attractive enough for advertisers, I would have to think outside the box to promote their products in ways that does not kill my listeners with spots.
And what about egos? I have seen enough on this board to last me a lifetime, quite frankly. What irritates me is the dismissive and condescending attitude longtime industry guys show towards educated listeners who present cogent arguments on this board, and Internet broadcasters in general. At least you have acknowledged that Internet radio is the future. That is refreshing, given some of the crap I have read from the usual terrestrial radio apologists on this board. The ONLY edge terrestrial radio has on Internet radio at present is tradition, the disparate royalties payments structure, and the ease of which listeners in their cars can traverse the FM and AM dials. But the tradition continues to fade with the advent of new technology, and once the playing field is level, the choice will be easy for listeners unless "free" radio can find a way to win back the loyalty of the people through better programming and fewer spots.
And what about egos? I have seen enough on this board to last me a lifetime, quite frankly. What irritates me is the dismissive and condescending attitude longtime industry guys show towards educated listeners who present cogent arguments on this board, and Internet broadcasters in general. At least you have acknowledged that Internet radio is the future. That is refreshing, given some of the crap I have read from the usual terrestrial radio apologists on this board. The ONLY edge terrestrial radio has on Internet radio at present is tradition, the disparate royalties payments structure, and the ease of which listeners in their cars can traverse the FM and AM dials. But the tradition continues to fade with the advent of new technology, and once the playing field is level, the choice will be easy for listeners unless "free" radio can find a way to win back the loyalty of the people through better programming and fewer spots.
I don’t believe that internet streams by definition offer “better programming” than over- the-air radio. That’s my opinion. To suggest otherwise is your opinion. It’s not fact.
Good programming, better programming, bad programming….it’s subjective.
Even in their final months, stations like KKSF and WNUA were still attracting hundreds of thousands of listeners weekly. Were these listeners enduring inferior programming? A station must offer excellent programming to attract hundreds of thousands of listeners in markets that size.
From what I’ve read, the smooth jazz format was dropped because of both aging demos and the change in the method of audience measurement. For some reason, the PPM measurement has caused smooth jazz formatted stations to rank lower than with the previous diary method. I wouldn’t even try to guess why, but I’d be really surprised if it were because of poor programming. I’m not sure, but I don’t think these stations were in a sea of red. The operators simply felt they could do better with something else.
Another advantage successful over-the-air broadcasters have over the online-only streamers is the know-how to attract and maintain large numbers of listeners. Being the radio apologist that I am, I believe that even when the playing field becomes level – as it certainly will be – this know-how will continue to give them the upper hand. But that’s just my opinion.
That said, I believe that those professional broadcasters who are paying attention to the upheavals wrought by technology realize that over-the-air radio must change its way of doing business and serving listeners. Enterprises like Pandora and Slacker are growing competitors. It’s a difficult time right now. Some radio consultants seem to have ideas which commercial radio could apply to new digital strategies, but the path is far from clear.
Some internet music streams may provide some listeners with a little they prefer over their similarly-formatted friendly neighborhood FM station. But do they unequivocally offer “better programming?” In my opinion, no.
As a smooth jazz enthusiast, I lament the FM stations changing format across the country, so I’m glad that the internet streams are available to me. Same with the Great American Songbook – it’s my favorite music, but it has evaporated from AM and FM. Fortunately, I can still enjoy it online. But where are those great people behind the mic? I miss ‘em!
“Less talk” is not necessarily a component of “better programming.” I believe the rarity of competent on-air music hosts on the internet-only music streamers is a large missing piece of the puzzle. Personally, I’m much more engaged listening to a show presented by a companionable, entertaining host who communicates a shared enthusiasm for the music we both love. That’s just my taste. In general, however, the historically great over-the-air music stations in all formats have featured excellent personalities well-matched to the music.
Ah, who the hell knows? Technology may evolve in yet more unforeseen directions. Ten years from now, this sabre-rattling could be moot when our brains are simply sensing music and digital reproductions of our favorite jocks from a chip implanted at the base of our spinal cords.
Nick Summers
Longtime Industry Guy & Radio Apologist
…and loving it
Good programming, better programming, bad programming….it’s subjective.
Even in their final months, stations like KKSF and WNUA were still attracting hundreds of thousands of listeners weekly. Were these listeners enduring inferior programming? A station must offer excellent programming to attract hundreds of thousands of listeners in markets that size.
From what I’ve read, the smooth jazz format was dropped because of both aging demos and the change in the method of audience measurement. For some reason, the PPM measurement has caused smooth jazz formatted stations to rank lower than with the previous diary method. I wouldn’t even try to guess why, but I’d be really surprised if it were because of poor programming. I’m not sure, but I don’t think these stations were in a sea of red. The operators simply felt they could do better with something else.
Another advantage successful over-the-air broadcasters have over the online-only streamers is the know-how to attract and maintain large numbers of listeners. Being the radio apologist that I am, I believe that even when the playing field becomes level – as it certainly will be – this know-how will continue to give them the upper hand. But that’s just my opinion.
That said, I believe that those professional broadcasters who are paying attention to the upheavals wrought by technology realize that over-the-air radio must change its way of doing business and serving listeners. Enterprises like Pandora and Slacker are growing competitors. It’s a difficult time right now. Some radio consultants seem to have ideas which commercial radio could apply to new digital strategies, but the path is far from clear.
Some internet music streams may provide some listeners with a little they prefer over their similarly-formatted friendly neighborhood FM station. But do they unequivocally offer “better programming?” In my opinion, no.
As a smooth jazz enthusiast, I lament the FM stations changing format across the country, so I’m glad that the internet streams are available to me. Same with the Great American Songbook – it’s my favorite music, but it has evaporated from AM and FM. Fortunately, I can still enjoy it online. But where are those great people behind the mic? I miss ‘em!
“Less talk” is not necessarily a component of “better programming.” I believe the rarity of competent on-air music hosts on the internet-only music streamers is a large missing piece of the puzzle. Personally, I’m much more engaged listening to a show presented by a companionable, entertaining host who communicates a shared enthusiasm for the music we both love. That’s just my taste. In general, however, the historically great over-the-air music stations in all formats have featured excellent personalities well-matched to the music.
Ah, who the hell knows? Technology may evolve in yet more unforeseen directions. Ten years from now, this sabre-rattling could be moot when our brains are simply sensing music and digital reproductions of our favorite jocks from a chip implanted at the base of our spinal cords.
Nick Summers
Longtime Industry Guy & Radio Apologist
…and loving it
Well, I wasn't speaking specifically about you as far as being one of my terrestrial radio apologist nemeses on this board, but it is obvious you took it that way. So be it. We will agree to disagree. And unless we want to cull through years of public records, ratings, annual reports, and the such, our opinions will remain just that---opinions. I can agree to that.
My short definition of better Smooth Jazz programming? Expansive playlists, a higher instrumental to vocals ratio, avoiding AC crossovers and overplayed cuts. In other words, the exact opposite of what your consultant friends and colleagues at Broadcast Architecture have been doing for the last decade. I too have been an avid listener of this genre since its inception over 25 years ago (you see Nick, you are NOT the only one), so I do know a little something about this music as well. And this is exactly the kind of arrogance I speak of---that the guys in the studio MUST know more than the morons tuning them in. And as long as we operate under that assumption, perhaps you can clarify some facts for me. Just so I know, your station is BA fed, is it not? If it is, I guess we can call that a FACT. Is it also a FACT that BA has lost over half of their affiliates since October 2008 when they replaced Jones in a number of markets? You see where I am going with this? Aging demos? I have heard this crap peddled before by other terrestrial radio apologists, and I am not buying it. Now here comes opinion. BA and the egomaniacs who run it have had a stranglehold on this genre for years in EVERY facet of this genre, and have delivered POOR and unimaginative programming, driving base listeners away for good. It has been discussed ad nauseum on this board, so I will not regurgitate what has been said by myself and other educated listeners and LONGTIME RADIO PROFESSIONALS. Yes, how dare other LONGTIME RADIO PROFESSIONALS have a difference of opinion with the BA machine? And the listeners, who cares about them? The BA mantra has been to cater to the lowest common denominator, and look where it has gotten us?
And for the record, I too miss "on air" jocks and the connection they establish with listeners, and wish I had the resources to hire them at a minimum to VT. The old Jones Radio Network gang, guys like Keith Riker, John Evans, Steve Hibbard, Laurie Cobb, were top notch. Nobody did it better, but BA thinks the solution is to toss artists who have about as much polish behind the mic as the Space Shuttle has after going through re-entry.
Enjoy loving being relevant, Nick. For your and BA's sake, I hope it lasts. But for those who are irrelevant, we do not have the luxury to live in the past, and can only think about the possibilities the future holds.
My short definition of better Smooth Jazz programming? Expansive playlists, a higher instrumental to vocals ratio, avoiding AC crossovers and overplayed cuts. In other words, the exact opposite of what your consultant friends and colleagues at Broadcast Architecture have been doing for the last decade. I too have been an avid listener of this genre since its inception over 25 years ago (you see Nick, you are NOT the only one), so I do know a little something about this music as well. And this is exactly the kind of arrogance I speak of---that the guys in the studio MUST know more than the morons tuning them in. And as long as we operate under that assumption, perhaps you can clarify some facts for me. Just so I know, your station is BA fed, is it not? If it is, I guess we can call that a FACT. Is it also a FACT that BA has lost over half of their affiliates since October 2008 when they replaced Jones in a number of markets? You see where I am going with this? Aging demos? I have heard this crap peddled before by other terrestrial radio apologists, and I am not buying it. Now here comes opinion. BA and the egomaniacs who run it have had a stranglehold on this genre for years in EVERY facet of this genre, and have delivered POOR and unimaginative programming, driving base listeners away for good. It has been discussed ad nauseum on this board, so I will not regurgitate what has been said by myself and other educated listeners and LONGTIME RADIO PROFESSIONALS. Yes, how dare other LONGTIME RADIO PROFESSIONALS have a difference of opinion with the BA machine? And the listeners, who cares about them? The BA mantra has been to cater to the lowest common denominator, and look where it has gotten us?
And for the record, I too miss "on air" jocks and the connection they establish with listeners, and wish I had the resources to hire them at a minimum to VT. The old Jones Radio Network gang, guys like Keith Riker, John Evans, Steve Hibbard, Laurie Cobb, were top notch. Nobody did it better, but BA thinks the solution is to toss artists who have about as much polish behind the mic as the Space Shuttle has after going through re-entry.
Enjoy loving being relevant, Nick. For your and BA's sake, I hope it lasts. But for those who are irrelevant, we do not have the luxury to live in the past, and can only think about the possibilities the future holds.
- Status