TVradioguru said:
In my opinion, even after these economic hard times pass, I'm not sure KGO will be able to pull out of the dive it's in. At a minimum, it will take a large investment in an FM signal, a lot of outside promotion, and becoming a serious player in breaking news, then talking about it with consistent talent. The catch is KGO's owner, whomever it is, will then need to report what the pay-back will be to the shareholders. Return to the hay-days of radio being the primary aural media and all the associated revenues? I doubt it somehow..
This suggests a problem for all AM news-talkers then, doesn't it? How many ever had the capital to be newsbreakers. In fact, news radio rarely breaks news (most investigative reporting is done in newspapers). It used to be that if you did a story on air and the newspaper picked it up the next day, it was a feather in your cap. That doesn't mean the station doesn't have good reporters --they certainly do, and some of them also know how to use the medium-- but KCBS doesn't necessarily have better reporters. A number of people here have referred to KCBS as an heir apparent to the top spot. What are they doing to get better ratings? Are they spending more money than KGO? Is a less than stellar FM signal really the difference?
In short, what do listeners want? Maybe they don't want AM.
But if the demo that doesn't want AM can get what FM provides elsewhere, via web platforms or their iPod, etc, that suggests the future doesn't bode well for FM. But if your talking about fantasy bucks to deliver the kind of AM station that has reporters everywhere, producers everywhere, their own traffic copter, a huge promotional budget --oh, and an FM stick-- who is willing to pony up that kind of cash. Certainly not the current crop of corporate owners, many of whom seem to have treated radio the way earlier in this decade speculators flipped houses and banks flipped mortgage loans. All three hit a wall and heavy prices are being paid as a result. Now what?
I have a hard time believing that listeners don't listen to KGO because they don't listen to AM. No one has said that directly but to me, that's reminiscent of the PD who says, "Don't mention the competition's call letters; that's giving them free advertising." Yes, because listeners are too stupid to know there's another station in town and if you don't mention it, they won't know about it? Come
on. Maybe they're not listening to KGO because they're just not into KGO. What does KGO have to do to get those listeners to be into KGO? Surely it's not, "simulcast on an FM," because if that's it, that's a no brainer.
As one poster said, the hosts have to have lived life a little to comment on life's issues; must listeners do the same? I heard Ronn Owens mention some Las Vegas station getting in hot water because their morning show pulled what turned out to be a controversial April Fools prank. I don't question the topic but his listeners --KGO's listeners-- may be in the wrong ball park to play this in. They're getting their news from a station like KGO and soon enough someone will ask (as someone did), "Who the hell gets their news from a CHR station?" Would that be younger listeners who don't listen to KGO... because they're younger?
I also wonder if there's a demographic gap. Baby boomers are the largest population block in the country. What's the make-up of Gen X and Gen Y listeners who currently "won't listen to AM"? Will that change when those generations age and will they then start tuning into KGO because they'll care less about the frequency and more about the essential product KGO provides: Compelling talk radio?
Sorry for the rambling... Perhaps there are several things to chew on in all that.
