The Day The Oldies Died

[rbrucecarter5]

We'll see how it does in the "cellular signal graveyard".

We had some 60 plus mile commutes all over LA a month ago when my daughter did her acting thing - going to sets and locations scattered all over the place. We used our cells a lot, and coverage held up really well. of course that was a different carrier, let me know how ATT does for you. It is important, not just for streaming in LA for us cast parents, but for calls to agents and stuff for my daughter.

 

[davideduardo]

We had some 60 plus mile commutes all over LA a month ago when my daughter did her acting thing - going to sets and locations scattered all over the place. We used our cells a lot, and coverage held up really well. of course that was a different carrier, let me know how ATT does for you. It is important, not just for streaming in LA for us cast parents, but for calls to agents and stuff for my daughter.

Verizon by a mile. ATT is second, in a close tie with Sprint. TMobil is last. I have ATT and Verizon and T Mobile and Sprint on family phones... use three of them myself on different devices.

 

[scooty430]

Where do I go now?

1. iPod
2. XM Radio

1. Don't have one, can't afford one
2. Don't have one, can't afford one.

1. CBS-FM - free online
2. WLNG - free online
3. WLS-FM - free online
4. XM is only $12 a month online. Cost of a sandwich, chips, and a coke.

But it IS sad that local radio is abandoning oldies in many markets, or changing them to mean Duran Duran and Beat It. And of course online radio doesn't work in the car (yet.) Sadly, the "over 55's" are poison to advertisers, which is horrible because if you live to 85, that's 30 years where nobody wants your ears!

 

[scooty430]

****When they realize that most people over 50 have more money than those they are catering to****

They know most people over 50 have more money than the younger crowd.

They also know that people over 50 tend to hang onto their money, and they're not easily persuaded to run right out and buy every new thing that comes along.

Unlike the 18 to 35 crowd, who will buy anything.

I miss the oldies too PapillionWyngs.

The classic rationale is that a younger person is a better "investment" because you will get more years out of him or her as a customer. But with products changing so much, people living longer, and baby boomers trying to stay young and current, I am surprised 55 is still this big cutoff. Puzzling....

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Verizon by a mile. ATT is second, in a close tie with Sprint. TMobil is last. I have ATT and Verizon and T Mobile and Sprint on family phones... use three of them myself on different devices.

Much appreciated! Thanks! We have to make the most of our trips to LA - phone dropouts can cost auditions / parts. The rest of the time we are in Houston, listening to 60's on 6 on XM, because there isn't any oldies station here.

 

[cyberdad]

We had some 60 plus mile commutes all over LA a month ago when my daughter did her acting thing - going to sets and locations scattered all over the place. We used our cells a lot, and coverage held up really well. of course that was a different carrier, let me know how ATT does for you. It is important, not just for streaming in LA for us cast parents, but for calls to agents and stuff for my daughter.

Verizon by a mile. ATT is second, in a close tie with Sprint. TMobil is last. I have ATT and Verizon and T Mobile and Sprint on family phones... use three of them myself on different devices.

Conversations with my various friend/customers/family members in the area would seem to bear this out. I've had ATT/Cinglular/ATT for about ten years. At first AT&T was shockingly bad. I'd rate it now as "fair". Better than it used to be, but still has a ways to go. My son has had Sprint for about as long as I have. He also travels in his work, and his experience with Sprint in so-Cal has been similar to mine with ATT.

Bruce: I'll post how I come out with the streaming on the iPhone. Frankly, I'm not expecting much. A robust 3G signal is needed for good, dropout-free, reception of high-quality streams. Fortunately, we pretty much have that here in Chicago....as well as in most of the other cities I was in during the summer (Austin, Minneapolis, Birmingham, Memphis, and a couple of others). Based on my previous cellular experience, I'm expecting my streaming effort this coming week in LA/Orange County to be a mixed bag. Some areas where it probably will be just fine....others where it will be problematic. I also expect the situation to be unfavorably impacted by heavy use of whatever bandwidth is available.

 

[davideduardo]

The classic rationale is that a younger person is a better "investment" because you will get more years out of him or her as a customer. But with products changing so much, people living longer, and baby boomers trying to stay young and current, I am surprised 55 is still this big cutoff. Puzzling....

That's not the "classic rationale" and your conclusion are wrong.

Older demos require more ad impressions to make a sale, as older consumers have generally more established brand preferences. So it takes more ads, and that often means the ROI (return on investment) against 55+ is just not worth it. Except for senior-specific products, mass market products are not much to seniors.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

the ROI (return on investment) against 55+ is just not worth it. Except for senior-specific products, mass market products are not much to seniors.

sucks for them. I'm a multi-millionaire with lots of disposable income. And I frequently bought products I heard advertised on the OLDIES station. younger people may seem like a more desirable demographic, but its us old folks that have the big $$$$.

 

[davideduardo]

sucks for them. I'm a multi-millionaire with lots of disposable income. And I frequently bought products I heard advertised on the OLDIES station. younger people may seem like a more desirable demographic, but its us old folks that have the big $$$$.

The issue is not about having lots of money. You may have a million or two, but you do not spend much of it... you spend the income it produces. So you are not much differerent from a 39 year old accountant, except, perhaps, for a couple of things like the kind of car you use or the value of your home... both infrequent purchases.

Most radio advertising comes from the mundane and the common... beer, soft drinks, drug stores and fast foods. Things nearly anyone can afford.

And companies like P&G and Budweiser spend tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to measure the effectiveness of their advertising... and they have learned that going for 55+ has terrible returns... it takes more expense in advertising than the profit on the sale.

 

[stan]

David, I think you make some valid points. I disagree with your premise that this growing segment of the population will not spend money. This segment is where most of the wealth resides and it is a mistake to write it off.

 

[Brokenhearted Bill]

The PROPER question that is rarely if ever addressed is this: What percentage of the station's listening audience actually buys the products and services of the sponsors? Station owners have decided in their wisdom that 1) entertaining DJs are of no benefit 2) numbers of listeners equate to numbers of product/service buyers. Neither is true.

If a station has, say, a .3 in the Houston market, you're talking about more than 100,000 listeners. If you can get more of those listeners to be sponsor-loyal than the station with, say, a 3.00 share, then why would you reformat so you can draw disloyal listeners?

So now we have a significant portion of the population whose taste in radio formatting is not being met. That's inconsistent with the FCCs original congress-mandated reason for being. Broadcasters are supposed to operate in the public's interest, convenience and necessity.

 

[johndavis]

The PROPER question that is rarely if ever addressed is this: What percentage of the station's listening audience actually buys the products and services of the sponsors? Station owners have decided in their wisdom that 1) entertaining DJs are of no benefit 2) numbers of listeners equate to numbers of product/service buyers. Neither is true.

If a station has, say, a .3 in the Houston market, you're talking about more than 100,000 listeners. If you can get more of those listeners to be sponsor-loyal than the station with, say, a 3.00 share, then why would you reformat so you can draw disloyal listeners?

So now we have a significant portion of the population whose taste in radio formatting is not being met. That's inconsistent with the FCCs original congress-mandated reason for being. Broadcasters are supposed to operate in the public's interest, convenience and necessity.

The FCC doesn't regulate formats. If you want to live in a country where the government dictates what kind of music a station plays in order to serve the public interest, I suggest you try Canada. While you're there, try the healthcare.

This is a country where the public interest is determined by market forces. You know, capitalism.

All of y'all who are so convinced that the a viable, moneymaking audience isn't being served by station X, Y, or Z, why don't you pull a Dan Patrick or Dan Frischberg and lease out a few hours on either 650 or one of the MBI AMs, and see how you do? Put your money where your mouth is. If you're right, you'll get the last laugh.

 

[davideduardo]

David, I think you make some valid points. I disagree with your premise that this growing segment of the population will not spend money. This segment is where most of the wealth resides and it is a mistake to write it off.

Again, marketers spend billions on research for every aspect of products and services and retail... ranging from packaging to ad response to consumption by different demographic groups.

In general, the finding is that 55+ consumers require more "prodding" to be convinced to change a product or service for another, and the cost of the prodding is often greater than the profit on the sale. So there is actually a loss targeting seniors alone.

In the broadest terms, the older a consumer is the more likely they are to be hesitant to make spontaneous changes in buying patterns. This is based on long-term brand preference establishment, less need to be a trend setter or inovator and other factors.

And the over-65 group, mostly retired, is on predominantly limited incomes with little desire to make product experimentations... as the cost/benefit is not apparent.

 

[radiobop]

However, I hope to prove the world wrong here as Radio Bop goes commercial in the next quarter with a loyal listener base of baby boomers predominately age 50+ going after targeted advertisers catering specifically to this market in the entertainment, travel, health, investment, and web-based sales segments.

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

The other day, we were getting ready to head to the supermarket. My guy asked, "Do you want a different kind of shampoo?"
I thought for a minute. "No, just get me something different. Since we got DVR, I don't know what I'm supposed to need."

We thought about that for a moment and realized that between DVR on the dish and our mp3 adapters and CD players in our vehicles, we have collectively neither seen nor heard a full commercial in almost a year.

Oh, well.

 

[davideduardo]

We thought about that for a moment and realized that between DVR on the dish and our mp3 adapters and CD players in our vehicles, we have collectively neither seen nor heard a full commercial in almost a year.

Unfortunately, the little anecdote you posted is not supported by fact. Several ad industry studies show that DVR households also watch live tv... generally in a proportion of twice as much live TV as that which is DVR-recorded.

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

David, are you saying that you're so convinced that you're right that you actually know better than my partner and myself what we discussed about our viewing habits? I can assure you, we both had a great laugh when we realized that we speed through commecials every time and, when we watch live TV, we always put the TV on hold during the first ad break and wait a few minutes so we can speed through all the rest of the commericals in the show. In fact, we've shared plenty of laughs with other friends who have DVR who also have waved goodbye to commercials. Being able to use the DVR to pause live TV and fast-forward through commercials is one of the greatest inventions of our age since the web and the smartphone.

Were you there with us in our living room? NO. You were NOT.

My anecdote IS supported by fact because it's what WE do in OUR family. To say that my anecdote is not supported by fact is to tell a baldfaced lie (or maybe you intentionally misunderstood, so that you could appear to know something). Is that what you're doing? I don't care how other households are using or misusing their DVRs. We, and our friends, use it the way it is intended, and we LOVE not having the same stupid commercials rammed down our throats. For that matter, our children "tape" several shows every week for when they're not around, so so much for your theory there, too. And, times where we may sit down together when the show comes on, we know that any hour show will only consume 40 minutes if we don't have to sit through the useless ads. It's simple. You press the "pause" button at the beginning of the first commercial, go get a snack or use the restroom, and when you get back, voila. No commercials for the duration of the show. You should try it sometime.
Unless you are in my living room, your statement is FALSE. My anecdote is supported by FACT, because it happens in MY HOUSE. Do you really need to argue so much that you're going to tell us what our viewing habits are? Because, like so many other times, you're also WRONG now.


How about a souce with your "studies"? It won't make a difference with your assertion that you know our family's viewing habits, but I'm interested to know where you come about your information, or if it's just your compulsive need to assert some sort of "knowledge" regardless of the topic at hand. Come on, produce your source---and then tell me where you were hiding in MY living room when you decided my anecdote is not supported in FACT. You cannot do it, because MY andecdote is supported by the FACT that you were not included in our conversation---or any other knowledge you may claim---regarding what takes place in our home.

 

[davideduardo]

My anecdote IS supported by fact because it's what WE do in OUR family. To say that my anecdote is not supported by fact is to tell a baldfaced lie (or maybe you intentionally misunderstood, so that you could appear to know something).

Despite your lengthy response, the fact is that anecdotal stories about what any one of us does are just that... single situation reactions or observations that can not be projected into whatever the particular universe is... in this case, TV households con DVRs.

How about a souce with your "studies"? It won't make a difference with your assertion that you know our family's viewing habits, but I'm interested to know where you come about your information, or if it's just your compulsive need to assert some sort of "knowledge" regardless of the topic at hand.

Many of us in the industry are party to proprietary data which we can "extract" without violating NDRs and such. In the case of one of the DVR household studies, a summary was given to the trade press:

http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/dvr-ownership-has-limited-effect-on-live-tv-viewing-6550/

Googling on these terms "use of live tv by dvr households" will show other studies or reports on the same one.

Come on, produce your source---and then tell me where you were hiding in MY living room when you decided my anecdote is not supported in FACT. You cannot do it, because MY andecdote is supported by the FACT that you were not included in our conversation---or any other knowledge you may claim---regarding what takes place in our home.

All that does not change the fact that a single anecdote, the equivalent of n=1, can not be projected into the universe under examination.

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

My anecdote IS supported by fact because it's what WE do in OUR family. To say that my anecdote is not supported by fact is to tell a baldfaced lie (or maybe you intentionally misunderstood, so that you could appear to know something).

Despite your lengthy response, the fact is that anecdotal stories about what any one of us does are just that... single situation reactions or observations that can not be projected into whatever the particular universe is... in this case, TV households con DVRs.

How about a souce with your "studies"? It won't make a difference with your assertion that you know our family's viewing habits, but I'm interested to know where you come about your information, or if it's just your compulsive need to assert some sort of "knowledge" regardless of the topic at hand.

Many of us in the industry are party to proprietary data which we can "extract" without violating NDRs and such. In the case of one of the DVR household studies, a summary was given to the trade press:

http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/dvr-ownership-has-limited-effect-on-live-tv-viewing-6550/

Googling on these terms "use of live tv by dvr households" will show other studies or reports on the same one.

Come on, produce your source---and then tell me where you were hiding in MY living room when you decided my anecdote is not supported in FACT. You cannot do it, because MY andecdote is supported by the FACT that you were not included in our conversation---or any other knowledge you may claim---regarding what takes place in our home.

All that does not change the fact that a single anecdote, the equivalent of n=1, can not be projected into the universe under examination.

David, all I was sharing was that single anecdote, which you tried to "project into the universe under examination." Nobody asked you to respond, but since you did, I'm going to have to demand a source that tells you that people don't pause their live TVs and skip through the commercials. Claiming proprietary information does nothing to bolster your argument's credibility: "I know, but how I know is too secret to tell the board!" I call BS. It sounds to me like so much puffery---in other words, another typical post.

Besides, once again, you've subverted what someone else has said to try and push your own agenda (claiming some obscure knowledge that the rest of us can't access). DVR doesn't mean we record the entire show (although we are obviously above your idea of the norm with our use of the devices). It means we have the ability to pause our programs, rewind, and fast-forward through the commercials on live TV. That's why your hastily-Googled link plainly states:

The study also found that those who own DVRs are very happy with the service - 87% would recommend their DVR service to a friend, and 81% rate their DVR between 8 and10 on a 10-point scale (45% rate the service as 10). Yet recorded viewing is not necessarily the priority in DVR households - 68% of DVR owners say that they usually watch recorded DVR programs when there is nothing on regularly scheduled TV that they want to watch.

Of course we're happy with the service. We don't have to sit through commercials, ever. As I said (in my personal anecdote, which is supported in FACT regardless of your claims of psychic knowledge), we haven't watched a full commercial, or heard a full commercial, in almost a year.

Now, if you don't mind, my living room seems to need an exterminator. Some presence seems to have taken up residence and thinks it can argue with what we do or watch in there, just to make itself feel smarter. God knows, the world needs far, far less of those sorts of creatures.

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

P.S. Using your same source, HERE is one of the pertinent links you should have noticed:

http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/dvr-ad-skipping-to-hit-18-in-2-years-9672/

Here's the opening paragraph of that article:

The total number of ads being skipped using digital video recorders (DVRs) is currently only about 6%, but that number will rise to between 16% and 18% in two years, according to a report from consulting firm DVR Research Institute, writes MediaBuyerPlanner.
Morevoer, the number of households with DVRs now stands at about a third of total TV households, but that number is expected to rise to 50% in 2011, the report said.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.