Actually, ironically, TAB DID come back for a very short time in the 2000's, but only as an energy drink.
That had a very short life also.
-
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 New Star 96.1
- Thread starter GlennT
- Start date
That had a very short life also.
And you can also make the argument that the Mix positioner failed in ANOTHER market in the area; CKFM/99.9 in Toronto was known as Mix 99.9 from the early 90s until 2008, when it rebranded as 99.9 Virgin Radio.
Mix 999 in Toronto, from 1991 until 2008 is hardly a failure. It also managed to stay on ONE frequency all that time.
The station was sold, resold and sold again. (Standard sold to Astral, Astral sold to Bell)
Mix gradually shifted from a true variety over time to becoming more and more new music driven, to the point where all the classics were finally dropped. It only made good business sense to go all hits and take advantage of the Virgin radio name that Bell was already doing their best to cookie cut all over the place.
Yezi makes a valid point. "...early 90s until 2008..." would be a legacy compared to the brief lifetimes that the Mix moniker lasted on three or four frequencies in Buffalo. The longest run may have been around three years. That's in the category of the Lite moniker that was used for a time on 96.9 WRLT after album rock vanished from the frequency in 1985 before returning as Classic Rock around 1989.
Except that this was done in 2008 when Astral Media owned CKFM(they had purchased it from Standard). Astral's acquisition by Bell was still a few years off. Further, the only reason Astral partnered with the Virgin Group to rebrand as 99.9 Virgin Radio was that the original station to use that moniker(in the UK)was because they had been sold and were due to lose its positioner as a result of the sale.
I can verify the accuracy of that.
There are/were a ton of Breeze ads so I was wondering if they'd replace them.
Star 102.5 is still streaming, but the presentation is minimal on the web. No music listing, just a link to "Listen Live." Certainly, their blurb calling them "Your at-work station! Star 102.5 is playing the best contemporary pop music, live from Buffalo, New York! Listen to Star 102.5 and get all your favorite radio stations and podcasts on the go with the Audacy app!" is incorrect. There's nothing live about it. It will be interesting to see if they keep enough online listeners to remain in the book.
It's long intrigued this radio observer as to why any substantial number of people would listen to a commercial radio station streaming on-line, given the choices of Spotify, Pandora, Sirius/XM, "owned music," etc. I'm fully aware that people have their favorite AC, Classic Rock, Classic Hits, Country, Urban, Sports and News-Talk "go-to" favorites, especially for morning shows such as Shredd & Ragan; Clay Moden; the WGR morning or afternoon crew. It's also understandable that people from Buffalo now living in Piscataway or Pascagoula might gravitate to streaming to hear the home town take on the Bills, Sabres or a local political issue.
That, I get. But music stations?
Unless the format is unique (Classical, Jazz, Polka Electronica, All Can-Con All the Time), what's the "go to" for content when the jingles and/or imaging voice play a more significant role in the station's presentation than the on-air (live or voice-tracked) person, combined with the extended commercial breaks filled with testimonials for hair replacement and jewelers, or used car barkers and personal injury attorneys.
Being a realist, I understand that commercials of all styles and clientele are necessary, and radio stations are a business. Without prejudice, I'm simply stating that listeners have other (better) choices. They've always had choices (as when even a city like Olean or Elmira had two or three competing CHR, Country or AOR stations), but now the choices are exponentially greater.
Spare me the flames. It's a legitimate question. Break it down to not only facts and objective analysis, but emotional attachment; because in this particular case, I think "emotional attachment" plays a significant role in choosing what and who a listener likes when it comes to entertainment in general and in this board's case, radio in particular.
Thanks. And come back Wednesday with all ten fingers.
Last edited:
Thanks, Rusty, for such a thought-provoking post on this Fourth of July holiday. I think the baby boomer generation grew up with radio and still wants to hear radio. I’ll use my younger sister as an example. She’s always had 96.1 on in her house in all its iterations. The radio has now been replaced by Alexa. But Alexa is streaming 96.1 because that’s what my sister has always listened to. I doubt she has much familiarity with Spotify or Pandora. She’s certainly not paying for a music subscription service.
Plus, I think you hit it on the head, Rusty. Listeners are emotionally attached to their favorite personalities. You need only to have read the Facebook comments from dozens of listeners who paid tribute to Rob Lucas after his last show on Star 102.5. Rob was a part of these listeners lives, whether they were tuning in a radio or streaming via Alexa. I don’t think you can discount the power of a announcer, even those who voice track.
In my own case, I do pay for Apple Music. But it’s a computer. And it screws up sometimes. I’ll be streaming music from crooners like Frank Sinatra, and it will throw in “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” in the middle of summer. That’s why I prefer to stream Ralph Irene Saturdays on WEBR because he expertly curates his playlist while offering just the right amount of commentary. I prefer streaming WNED rather than Apple’s Classical offerings because I enjoy hearing Stratton Rawson share his knowledge about the pieces I’m listening to. And though there are no live announcers, I do prefer streaming Tom Schuh’s “Cool 101” on Live 365 over Apple’s classic rock offerings because of the depth of his playlist. You can tell he’s expertly curating the listening experience as opposed to Apple’s computer algorithm.
But I do understand the premise of your post. For me, my main objection to streaming a commercial music station is the length of commercial stopsets. I asked Alexa to play WECK the other day while we were sitting down to dinner. And I hit a stop set. After the third commercial, I gave up and asked Alexa to play my oldies playlist from Apple Music. I was sampling the new Star 96.1 while driving the other day. Again, a stop set exceeded five minutes. If I was listening for enjoyment purposes as opposed to checking it out as a retired radio professional, I would have tuned away. But that’s the reality of the commercial radio business. And we all know it seems to work because these stations have listeners despite the ungodly number of commercials.
Reasonable question. In the specific case of Star 102.5, the stream is commercial free. At least right now.
So if you had been streaming the station at your desk before, it's at the same url.
It's also at WLKK HD-2.
It's a loop of the same songs over and over with station id's and no announcers. People will get sick of hearing the same songs over and over soon enough. They'll have to either shut it down or update it.
I'm guessing a shut down is more likely. Otherwise they would have taken better care of the stream in the first place, including announcers.
How long is the loop? I haven't heard any repetition in an hour. If it's more than a couple hours, that's basically what CHR radio is anyway. Same songs over & over. No announcers and no commercials mean no interruptions. Perfect for at work.
Audacy has done the same thing with a number of their stations, including Alt92.3 in NYC.
But it's not the same product that was on the air right?
The announcers are gone. It's just music on shuffle.
I assume that Breeze (The New STAR) is also streaming.
Audacy Buffalo is not going to invest anything on an HD and streaming station. Maybe it's just a temporary way to deal with any complaints. They can say STAR didn't go away, it's just over here now. Former STAR listeners can't complain to EMF if they have no local presence...
Last edited:
The question was why should people listen to a radio stream instead of Spotify, Pandora, etc. I answered the question. Nobody promised 'the same product that was on air.' The announcers are gone, and so are the commercials. If the main thing people want from Star is a curated music feed, they have it. Live from Buffalo!
Audacy will be able tell how many people are streaming STAR. And as Deep Purple once sang "No one came from miles around"...
Well, not exactly "Live," although I still heard the voice of Rob Lucas from time to time. If I cared, I'd pay attention to see if they update the music from time to time, but I simply can't bring myself to sample the largely vapid, whiny music that is being presented as "Adult Contemporary" these days. I figure it'll take from 3 to 6 monthlies to determine the real impact of the demise of the commercial signal on 102.5.
- Status