And how much do they actually use radio? I know these are the happy numbers we use to try to impress advertisers.
-
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
The Crumbling Alternative Empire
- Thread starter tbolt909
- Start date
But you can say that about any format. In Buffalo, 90% of the people are not listening to country. 96% are not listening to sports. 96% are not listening to oldies.
The average radio usage is between 8 and 9 hours a week.
The numbers stations use to sell are usually the number of people listening when each spot runs. In that sense, it does not matter the share or the rating... it is how many potential consumers each ad reaches.
If you want to talk about Alt Rock, what about WEDG? They've been leaning that way, if not fully committed, for a while now and it hasn't helped their ratings. If anything, they've slipped a bit. With WBUF now trying to claim new territory might they revert to a harder Modern Rock format? Can they straddle Alternative and Modern Rock to claim a wider audience and expand their legacy audience?
Perhaps The Lake could do something similar expanding beyond Alt Rock into Singer/Songwriter with a dash of "unclassified" modern music? They need to go where no station has gone before if they want to find and build an audience. That's how the station has seen any kind of success in the past.
Perhaps The Lake could do something similar expanding beyond Alt Rock into Singer/Songwriter with a dash of "unclassified" modern music? They need to go where no station has gone before if they want to find and build an audience. That's how the station has seen any kind of success in the past.
The Lake does not exist anymore. The current ALT format would certainly have a better chance as AAA. That approach gives you a wide range that other stations cannot copy. You can play Dave Matthews, Traffic, Wilco, Bob Marley, The Who, Mumford & Sons, Talking Heads, and countless other artists. You attempt the exact opposite of what stations like WBUF and 97 Rock offer.
You can play a wide range of new and classic material with the appropriate presentation. And no it will not be #1, but it can certainly make some money and get better ratings like The Lake had...
The few remaining AAA stations are cratering as the format has little appeal in agency sales demos and, unless you are in Portland or Denver, is not appealing to local advertisers, most of whom do not identify with the music or the lifestyle.
You'd do better with Beautiful Music or Smooth Jazz.
Where does that kind of format make ANY money? Does it exist anywhere but on noncommercial stations in any Top 100 market?
To paraphrase William Shatner: "To boldly go where no station has gone before."
Is there anything in the past activity of Entercom that indicates they are that kind of company? I don't think so.
This station is what it is. They know the options, and this is what they've chosen.
Not likely. Check the ratings history for 107.7. It worked before and could work again. Many businesses in various markets may find AAA to be a good fit. Based on the state of Radio, they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt on what works and what doesn't. They keep recycling through failed formats...
AAA, a decade later will have listeners that are similarly aged. The biggest issue with the format is that it does not attract younger listeners and there appears to be no successful way to make it have better 35-54 appeal. That may be OK for non-coms that depend on listener support, but that is a dead format for sales purposes.
Anecdotally, I can tell you the story of AAA KSCA in LA. When we bought it in 1997, the management team had a meeting with the manager of KSCA who warned us that the signal was what held the station back and that we should not expect to do any better with our new format than they did. The recent average for the station was around a 1.2, and it leaned older.
We switched format and by the second full book KSCA was over a 6 share and #1 in 18-49 and 18-34, our target. It wasn't the signal, it was the format.
That was 23 years ago. The listeners are now a quarter century older.
WXRT in Chicago self-classifies as AAA, although it is kind of a hybrid with classic rock.
KBCO in Denver is the only other biggie, although it is leaning very old now, averaging around 15th in 25-54 but really well in 55+.
We then go to smaller markets:
WXRV in Boston, KINK in Portland and WTTS in Indianapolis. None are billing leaders in their markets, and are getting really old now. WMMM Madison.
There are only 11 AAA stations billing over a million. If you go to $2 million, there are 6 in the whole country. Yet there are over 1,100 stations in total in the US billing over 2 million.
Seems to be on its way
Then again, when you look at the state of current music, there's not much that isn't getting played already. All of the consensus genres are covered in Buffalo. There are actually too many stations for the amount of popular music that's being made. Just read Sean Ross's column about "songs that made a difference." None are from alternative.
AAA from my understanding in some parts of the country is going to non-commercial outlets like KCSN Los Angeles and KCMP Minneapolis in the case of KCMP Minneapolis it's being funded by Donors of Minnesota Public Radio for that to survive.
KCMP - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Not sure on what point Alternative would have to move to non-profit outlets though given that it would have to be part of a duopoly with the local NPR/News Talk affiliatento be viable.
One of the prominent AAA NPR stations is WXPN in Philadelphia. One of the things I've noticed about this station is audience tends to be in their 60s. The good news is people that age have expendable income and a desire to donate to charity.
I don't know, David. The radio industry keeps trotting out those statistics yet there's such a disconnect between them and what we can all see with our own eyes among people in that age group. Do you know any? They all listen to Spotify on their mobile phones with a set of wireless earbuds and that's the truth.
Maybe the ones who respond to Nielsen to be on the panel are from the small group of geeks still interested enough in radio to agree to carry around a big old meter or fill out a diary. I'll bet 88% of *them* really do listen to the radio, but you can't convince me they represent the typical radio consumption of that age group.
Are you able to physically monitor their behavior 24/7, to ensure that their ears are firmly glued to their phones at all times? That's what a PPM does. It also monitors, in a statistical way, people from ALL groups, regardless of income. Not just people you know or come in contact with.
Because from what I see, yes people are listening to a lot of devices. They aren't listening to their transistors the way boomers did in the 60s. But every now and then, they find themselves within earshot of a radio. It may not be THEIR radio. It may belong to a family member. It may happen at work or at the store. They don't even have to be aware that it's happening. But there's a moment when they fall under the reach of a radio. And that data is quantified and is available to advertisers.
Last edited:
First, the meter is shared with the TV service and will be part of the New Media consolidated service in a little more than a year. Metered households take on the project because they get rewarded... maybe not enough to get Elon Musk to carry one, but for the average family it's a nice incentive that they can earn.
The family member who accepts meters for a household understands that the device will monitor the use of media... radio, TV and all the other stuff. It's not described as a "radio monitor" and there is a percentage, one out of every ten, who don't even listen to radio during an average week.
The ratings for all electronic media conform (or try to) to the standards and regular full reviews, of the MRC, the Media Ratings Council ( Home ) which is mostly composed of advertisers and ad agency folks who want to be sure that their ad buys are accurately measured.
So it's not the radio industry that presents the stats; it is the ratings company that measures electronic media under the very thorough scrutiny of the ad industry.
It's one thing to say things like that, and it's another thing to know. There's a big difference between "maybe" and "definitely."
You can say what you want, and it doesn't cost you a dime. But for advertisers, it involves real money. Millions of dollars. They don't have to believe Nielsen's numbers. They can afford to do their own damned research. And what they see when they commission their own study is pretty much the same as what they get from Nielsen. This is not a made up press release made to make radio look good. If we were the ones trotting out the numbers, it would say 100%.
The alternative and AAA audience is, in my observation, disinclined to carry the meters. They're either skeptical of it, or it doesn't appeal to them to carry one. Which harmed those formats when PPM became a thing. So, in a way, the audience probably made the format less viable commercially. And I say that as someone who's highly passionate about both formats.
- Status