The pryer Oldies format

[semoochie]

Re: Cash Box charts? Hahahaha.

> > >
> > > What a shame. Corporate radio, ugh. Sounded like a great
>
> > > station.
> > >
> >
> > Any station that used Cash Box and Billboard lists from
> the
> > 50's and 60's should be checked by the state mental health
>
> > board.
> >
>
> I've actually never heard of "Cash Box" charts and I know
> that the charts from way back when are pretty inaccurate.
>
I believe Cashbox was big into the 80s.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Getting "real" about radio.

> > Actually, CC tried to make "real oldies" work in several
> > markets on very good facilities. They were not happy with
> > the ratings or the sales, and whacked 'em in all but one
> > place.
>
> The problem though was they listened to consultants, not
> people that know the area and the music.

The only important people are the listeners. They know what they want. Clear Channel owns two really good research compnaies, and you can bet theat they asked what people wanted to hear. All a consultant does is help interpret and implement research. Neither a PD nor a consultant makes determinations on what the local listeners want... the listeners themselves do.
>
> >
> > A 12% pretax operating profit margin will not even pay the
>
> > cost of capital. You would be better off investing in
> mutual
> > funds. So, if that is all one could get, they would not
> > invest. Even old-line business like GE has better
> operating
> > margins.
>
> The 12 to 15% profit is figured post tax not pre tax. That
> is your target zone. Anything above that is cream.

It makes, still, a station a bad investment. 12% to 15% will not pay a typical 7-year financing on a station. If there is no gain, why do it. The only case where that type of return would be acceptable is an owner operator who wants guaranteed lifetime employment and a moderate income. They can pay the loan, maybe baloon it to another 5 years, and end up with all the trade cars and restaurant script they need, and live OK. For other situations, the return is inadequate.
>
> >
> > That would make it worse. Since small operators would be
> far
> > riskier than big ones, the rates at which owners could
> > borrow would be 6 to 8 points over prime. This would make
> it
> > necessary to get 40% or better margins to take care of
> debt
> > service. It would also make operators go with thevery
> safe,
> > growing formats... and ones on the downtrend like oldies
> > would never be programmed.
>
> I disagree. Small operations might be more risky but they
> will
> be able to move and respond better to the listeners and the
> advertisers then the large corporations who micro-manage.

No, they won't. It will be just like the small (7 and 7) operators of the 60's and 70's who had big debt service and had to maximize profits. Since there was no low cost money to borrow, and no equity financing to use, all acquisitions came out of profits. And if any market went the wrong way, they tightend the screws on the other 6 like you have no idea. Far worse than today, where most group financing is by equity, not debt, and smaller groups get much lower cost money than previously available.

> 6 to 8 points are possible, but so are lower points. many
> factors come into play here and affect the loan rate but
> quite often a good local company dealing with their local
> bank can come up with reasonable rates.

Local banks seldom finance radio, as there are no attachable tangibles. In fact, in medium markets, tangible assests generally are less than 10% of the purchase price... and they are less than 5% in largetr ones. Most banks will not touch single station or single market deals, and most will not do radio at all.

> Locally owned or smaller radio corporations are more likely
> work at serving thier local market. This can include a
> format
> that may not give them the number one arbitron rating but
> give them a solid share of the market

This applies in very small markets, with owner operators. 50% of such staitons do not make money. Not making money does not encourage creativity. If they are in rated markets, numbers matter... as numbers indicate how big a response an advertiser will get. Independent operators seldom do risky formats.
>
> >
> > Be careful what you aske for, as you may get it. And you
> > will not like it.
>
> This is where you are wrong again.If I were to get it, I'd
> be happy with it. I Think the cap is a good thing. I think
> the rules on flipping stations (and I don't mean formats) is
>
> a good thing. And to be honest I think allowing some
> stations
> to go dark is a good thing.

There is always someone like you who thinks they can make a purse out of a swos ear. So there will always be someoen to buy nearly every bad station. The buisness has some kind of appeal, especially to fools with money.

I have worked in markets where there has been consolidation for 50 years, and there are more varied formats under consolidation than without it. I owned a cluster in a market of about a million in the 60's and it was only because of the leading staitons I had I was able to do things like building the country's first FM, to do indigenous language programming, to do a classical station, and to do rock on FM. None of these made money initially, and an independent owner could never do them.
>
> >
> > we are not necessarily smarter... although if this last
> post
> > is an example, I would resk a bet on that too... but we
> know
> > more of how th ebusiness works. You may think you know one
>
> > kind of music, but you do not know the business part that
> > must work if radio stations are to succeed.
>
> Well if the posts from you and Cat are an example I'd take
> the bet. I love taking money from a sucker. Do you know more
>
> about the day to day business of radio. Yep, but I can learn
>
> that. What can't be learned easy is the right music. You
> really just have to have the ear.

Oh, how absolutely and horribly wrong. That is an arrogant statement. The only people who know the music, the right music, are the listeners. I would never pretend to tell them what to like.

I learned that when I was about 13 and was invited to be my school's rep to a Top 40 staiton's listener panel. We were consulted on music, jocks, programming issues. In other words, the station, which had about a 25 share, knew it had to ask the listeners, not take unilateral decisions.

I have, on numberous ocasions, gone to places I have never been before, and created #1 or #2 radio stations... because I asked the listeners. Why is that so hard to get?
>
> >
> > I find him eminently more credible than you, although Cat
> > and I have disagreed on some points. Disagreeing in a
> field
> > where there are many solutions to one problem is one
> thing,
> > but being wrong is another.
> >
>
> Well of course you do. There's only a nickle's worth of
> difference between you two. I've been to your website David.
>
> I've seen your Resume. I was impressed, you've done a lot.
> But
> it also showed me plain as day that even if you, yourself
> aren't responsible for the sad shape of radio today, you are
>
> part of that consultan/research/corporate group that is.
> I especially like the spanish talk radio KTNQ(?) and the
> K-mart
> thing.
> If you're not part of the solution your part of the problem.

KTNQ could only have been done with the support of a large corporation. It did not make money initially, and is the worlds most expensive format.

(Personally, I am most proud of building South America's first FM, and making it immensely profitable within less than 2 years... in the 60's... and with only two minutes of spots an hour)

I disagree about the " sad shape of radio" since just as many people use it today as at any time in the last 50 years. What is happening is that there are more options, not worse radio. Radio is what it is. It is not as sexy as satellite or an iPod, but it is free, dependable and serves 95% of the people well.

By the way, there were consutants and researchers in the 50's too. As I said in another post, if you would undergo an operation without first talking to a specialist, then your point is taken. But we use consultants in every facet of life... and it is the right way to get better radio. And " research" is just a way of saying " talking with the listeners" which is the only way to go.

 

[OldiesCat]

radio

David- save your breath and your fingers. Mike's a high school radio guy who already has it all figured out. It's impossible to impart experienced radio wisdom to those who already know it all.

(this post to be followed by his comments that I have no credibility, how we're part of "corporate radio" and are clueless, etc. etc., blah-blah).

 

[jakej]

Re: radio

> David- save your breath and your fingers. Mike's a high
> school radio guy who already has it all figured out. It's
> impossible to impart experienced radio wisdom to those who
> already know it all.
>
> (this post to be followed by his comments that I have no
> credibility, how we're part of "corporate radio" and are
> clueless, etc. etc., blah-blah).
>

It's called enthusiasm. Remember when you guys used to have it? I don't get nearly as depressed reading him as I do reading the cut-and-dried "analyses" of others.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: great radio

>
> It's called enthusiasm.

It is possible to have enthusiasm and to program right at the same time.

If you refer to "I am going to play whatever the heck I want because I am the PD" then you simply will have no ratings, and, shortly, no job.

> Remember when you guys used to
> have it?

I still have it. It is an unmatched feeling to put together research, creativity, good talent and good promotion and see it work. As the A-Team said, "I love it when a plan comes together."

Just because you let the listeners tell you wht they want to hear does not dampen true enthusiasm.

Example: the first time I did an AMT (music test), I gave my guess on the first 100 songs. And I had been doing that format, successfully for about 15 years... I was off by more than 20% on the scores on 75% of the songs. I was scoring to my taste, not the listeners'. Obviously, upon implementing the test, the station improved radically, even if some of my pet songs died.

> I don't get nearly as depressed reading him as I do
> reading the cut-and-dried "analyses" of others.
>

The creativity is the glue you put all the rest together with. It is not the most obvious thing, but it is what makes a good radio station great. And there can be lots of enthusiasm in it.

Remember, doing great radio is not about your picking the music. It is about makeing listeners prefer you over all other options. And there is a definite mix of art and science there... and both must be present.

 

[OldiesCat]

radio

Please don't question my passion and enthusiasm for Radio. You don't know a thing about me. If I weren't enthusiastic about our craft, I wouldn't be on these boards sharing real-life radio information with mis-informed youngsters like Mike.
He may be enthusiastic but he's often mis-guided about the hard-knocks world of real, everyday, commercial radio.

> It's called enthusiasm. Remember when you guys used to
> have it? I don't get nearly as depressed reading him as I do
> reading the cut-and-dried "analyses" of others.
>

 

[MikeDane]

Re: Getting "real" about radio.

>
> The only important people are the listeners. They know what
> they want. Clear Channel owns two really good research
> compnaies, and you can bet theat they asked what people
> wanted to hear. All a consultant does is help interpret and
> implement research. Neither a PD nor a consultant makes
> determinations on what the local listeners want... the
> listeners themselves do.

If the listeners makes the determination then why the big cut
of music from the '55 to '64? it's like music never existed
before then. When MJI (A CC station) cut out the music from
that time frame there was a big uproar over it. So much so that
they trew the listeners a bone and did a sunday night show for
it.

> It makes, still, a station a bad investment. 12% to 15% will
> not pay a typical 7-year financing on a station. If there is
> no gain, why do it. The only case where that type of return
> would be acceptable is an owner operator who wants
> guaranteed lifetime employment and a moderate income. They
> can pay the loan, maybe baloon it to another 5 years, and
> end up with all the trade cars and restaurant script they
> need, and live OK. For other situations, the return is
> inadequate.

Thats what we need to get back to owner/operators or small
corporations. Not large 1200 station corporations.
> >
> > >
> > > That would make it worse. Since small operators would be

> No, they won't. It will be just like the small (7 and 7)
> operators of the 60's and 70's who had big debt service and
> had to maximize profits. Since there was no low cost money
> to borrow, and no equity financing to use, all acquisitions
> came out of profits. And if any market went the wrong way,
> they tightend the screws on the other 6 like you have no
> idea. Far worse than today, where most group financing is by
> equity, not debt, and smaller groups get much lower cost
> money than previously available.

Big debt service like CC has? And small corporations can avail
themselves of using equity as well.

> Local banks seldom finance radio, as there are no attachable
> tangibles. In fact, in medium markets, tangible assests
> generally are less than 10% of the purchase price... and
> they are less than 5% in largetr ones. Most banks will not
> touch single station or single market deals, and most will
> not do radio at all.

Perhaps that's how the banks in your market and the markets
you've been in are. But I also notice the word "most". Not
all will say no. In fact I know a smaller bank that has loaned
money to a radio station. It can go either way.


> This applies in very small markets, with owner operators.
> 50% of such staitons do not make money. Not making money
> does not encourage creativity. If they are in rated markets,
> numbers matter... as numbers indicate how big a response an
> advertiser will get. Independent operators seldom do risky
> formats.

I guess a top 75 market is a small market then. and the station
in question is owned by a corporation.

> There is always someone like you who thinks they can make a
> purse out of a swos ear. So there will always be someoen to
> buy nearly every bad station. The buisness has some kind of
> appeal, especially to fools with money.

That's funny. Consultants like you have been trying to make
silk purses out of a sow's ear for years. And all we the listeners
get is radio that sucks. And as I've said I'm not against letting
a station go dark. I think there are too many. Especially on the
AM band.

>
> I have worked in markets where there has been consolidation
> for 50 years, and there are more varied formats under
> consolidation than without it. I owned a cluster in a market
> of about a million in the 60's and it was only because of
> the leading staitons I had I was able to do things like
> building the country's first FM, to do indigenous language
> programming, to do a classical station, and to do rock on
> FM. None of these made money initially, and an independent
> owner could never do them.

There has been consolidation for a long time David and it has
been slowly draging the quality down. But now you have Clear
Channel and Infinity that have gotten larger then they should
have been allowed and they sped it up. As for more varied
formats. How many Kiss stations are there? And if memory serves
there was one DJ who was VTing for 12 of them. If thats not
cookie cutter I don't know what is.
It's nice that you owned that cluster David, but talk to me
about American radio. Not where you have to run from the local
Junta.

> > Well if the posts from you and Cat are an example I'd take
> > the bet. I love taking money from a sucker. Do you know more
> > about the day to day business of radio. Yep, but I can learn
> > that. What can't be learned easy is the right music. You
> > really just have to have the ear.
>
> Oh, how absolutely and horribly wrong. That is an arrogant
> statement. The only people who know the music, the right
> music, are the listeners. I would never pretend to tell them
> what to like.

Oh? and whats arrogant about that statement David? That I can
learn how to handle the day to day business of radio? I can learn
how to sell. People learn how to sell all the time. Or maybe
that I could learn to do traffic? Or production? Or promotions?
These are all skills that can be learned. It is arrogance to
think these skills can't be learned.
And having taken my trips through management (as much as I hate
it), I know to get good people, put them into place, point the
direction and get the hell out of the way. I like short chains of
command and delegating.

Perhaps you think the comment about having an ear for the right
music is arrogant. Well it's not, for several reasons. First, I
never tell my listeners what to like. They tell ME what they
like, and I take that into consideration. I do a request show
after all. Second, having an ear for the music is not a magic
wand. Every one makes mistakes, you just can't bat .500 all the
time. But you will get more homers than someone with out it.
Being a Cleveland boy let me remind you of Papa-Oom-Mow-Mow which
got a boost thanks to Ghoulardi. What NE Ohio oldies station
wouldn't play that? (a CC station) and the same with Desert Rat.
Or how about something from LA? Whittier Blvd. by Thee Midnighters.

>
> I learned that when I was about 13 and was invited to be my
> school's rep to a Top 40 staiton's listener panel. We were
> consulted on music, jocks, programming issues. In other
> words, the station, which had about a 25 share, knew it had
> to ask the listeners, not take unilateral decisions.

PD's have been making unilateral decisions since the begining
of radio. Wether it is AM, FM, XM/Sirius, streaming internet or
podcasting the PD for good or bad always has the final say.

>
> I have, on numberous ocasions, gone to places I have never
> been before, and created #1 or #2 radio stations... because
> I asked the listeners. Why is that so hard to get?

And again I say talk to me about American radio. I have always
advocated listening to the people who listen to us. It's you
who don't get it. CC doesn't listen to us. Nor does Infinity.
But people like me do. After all I am a listener too. I'll bet
I listen to more oldies music in a week then you and Cat both
listen to in 2 months. I'm always looking for that next great
Song to play. And as I've said before the Billboard and
Cashbox charts are a starting point, but not the ending point.
They are not perfect thanks to payola and all the other stuff.
But they are a start. Then look at the bubbling under and from
there look up local charts like the WIXY tune-dex and the WKNR
charts and you will find some gems. Also don't forget to listen
to other sources and network with collectors for those songs we
all should have heard. Then put your catches out there and see
what the listeners think. That's where the ear comes in. Some
will go into heavy rotation, some medium and some light rotation.
And it will expand your play list. Why is that so hard to get?


> KTNQ could only have been done with the support of a large
> corporation. It did not make money initially, and is the
> worlds most expensive format.

And I will agree to a point. But it is because of the lack of
ownership cap and the flipping of stations that radio has
become so expensive.
And to be honest KTNQ is a good example of letting stations
go dark.

>
> (Personally, I am most proud of building South America's
> first FM, and making it immensely profitable within less
> than 2 years... in the 60's... and with only two minutes of
> spots an hour)

Building the first FM and making it profitable is something to
be proud of. I can't fault you for that. But what have you done
in the US to make radio better?

>
> I disagree about the " sad shape of radio" since just as
> many people use it today as at any time in the last 50
> years. What is happening is that there are more options, not
> worse radio. Radio is what it is. It is not as sexy as
> satellite or an iPod, but it is free, dependable and serves
> 95% of the people well.

Of course you disagree. It's folks like you that have brought
us to this point. It's like a fat cop saying donuts don't make
you fat. Radio is in sad shape and its listenership will slowly
decline. When even 80 year olds are buying computers to do email
and listent to online streams (and this is already happening)
, and 45 year olds are buying mp3 players and XM/Sirius rather
than listen to regular radio, you will have a slow decline. When
all new cars have XM/Sirius and they are readily and cheaply
available regular radio will be in real trouble.

>
> By the way, there were consutants and researchers in the
> 50's too. As I said in another post, if you would undergo an
> operation without first talking to a specialist, then your
> point is taken. But we use consultants in every facet of
> life... and it is the right way to get better radio. And "
> research" is just a way of saying " talking with the
> listeners" which is the only way to go.

Having gone under the knife on several occasions, of course I
talk to specialists. But I also make sure they are competent
specialists.
I have always advocated listening to our customers, but seem
to get ridiculed by our corporate yes men around here.

Mike Dane
WSTB-FM 88.9
www.SundayOldiesJukebox.com

 

[MikeDane]

Re: radio

> David- save your breath and your fingers. Mike's a high
> school radio guy who already has it all figured out. It's
> impossible to impart experienced radio wisdom to those who
> already know it all.
>
> (this post to be followed by his comments that I have no
> credibility, how we're part of "corporate radio" and are
> clueless, etc. etc., blah-blah).
>
Yes I'm a high school radio guy. Whats a matter Cat? mad that
I do it better than 99 44/100% of you corporate types?
Do I have it all figured out? Oh heavens no. I still have lots
to learn. But if I'm going to learn its going to be from people
who know what they are doing.
And if what you have is experienced radio wisdom no wonder that
radio today sucks bilge water.
And I wont bother you with your lack of credibility, or how
your part of the corporate radio yes men or even how clueless
you are. All I say is dont hide behind a handle and prove to
me what you've done and are doing. Walk the walk if you're going
to talk the talk, just like I do every sunday night.

Mike Dane
WSTB-FM 88.9
www.SundayOldiesJukebox.com

 

[MikeDane]

Re: radio

> Please don't question my passion and enthusiasm for Radio.
> You don't know a thing about me. If I weren't enthusiastic
> about our craft, I wouldn't be on these boards sharing
> real-life radio information with mis-informed youngsters
> like Mike.
> He may be enthusiastic but he's often mis-guided about the
> hard-knocks world of real, everyday, commercial radio.
>
He has every right to question your passion and enthusiasm as
do I. We haven't seen or heard any proof.
Youngster? Ha! I haven't been a youngster in a long long time.
And If I want real life radio information I will go to my
friends and aquaintances that I KNOW and trust. Not someone
who hides behind a curtain like a wizard from OZ.

"Toto, this sure as Hell ain't Kansas. Get the guns"

Mike Dane
WSTB-FM 88.9
www.SundayOldiesJukebox.com

 

[radiolover78]

Re: Getting "real" about radio.

> > > Actually, CC tried to make "real oldies" work in several
>
> > > markets on very good facilities. They were not happy
> with
> > > the ratings or the sales, and whacked 'em in all but one
>
> > > place.
> >
> > The problem though was they listened to consultants, not
> > people that know the area and the music.
>
> The only important people are the listeners. They know what
> they want. Clear Channel owns two really good research
> compnaies, and you can bet theat they asked what people
> wanted to hear. All a consultant does is help interpret and
> implement research. Neither a PD nor a consultant makes
> determinations on what the local listeners want... the
> listeners themselves do.

Ha, what a laugh. The main goal is to make money. Do you think the listeners of a station that flipped (example is CBS FM) wanted it to flip? Did they want their favorite station to change? No! That wasn't "the listeners" decision.


> > > A 12% pretax operating profit margin will not even pay
> the
> >
> > > cost of capital. You would be better off investing in
> > mutual
> > > funds. So, if that is all one could get, they would not
> > > invest. Even old-line business like GE has better
> > operating
> > > margins.
> >
> > The 12 to 15% profit is figured post tax not pre tax. That
>
> > is your target zone. Anything above that is cream.
>
> It makes, still, a station a bad investment. 12% to 15% will
> not pay a typical 7-year financing on a station. If there is
> no gain, why do it. The only case where that type of return
> would be acceptable is an owner operator who wants
> guaranteed lifetime employment and a moderate income. They
> can pay the loan, maybe baloon it to another 5 years, and
> end up with all the trade cars and restaurant script they
> need, and live OK. For other situations, the return is
> inadequate.
> >
> > >
> > > That would make it worse. Since small operators would be
>
> > far
> > > riskier than big ones, the rates at which owners could
> > > borrow would be 6 to 8 points over prime. This would
> make
> > it
> > > necessary to get 40% or better margins to take care of
> > debt
> > > service. It would also make operators go with thevery
> > safe,
> > > growing formats... and ones on the downtrend like oldies
>
> > > would never be programmed.
> >
> > I disagree. Small operations might be more risky but they
> > will
> > be able to move and respond better to the listeners and
> the
> > advertisers then the large corporations who micro-manage.
>
> No, they won't. It will be just like the small (7 and 7)
> operators of the 60's and 70's who had big debt service and
> had to maximize profits. Since there was no low cost money
> to borrow, and no equity financing to use, all acquisitions
> came out of profits. And if any market went the wrong way,
> they tightend the screws on the other 6 like you have no
> idea. Far worse than today, where most group financing is by
> equity, not debt, and smaller groups get much lower cost
> money than previously available.
>
> > 6 to 8 points are possible, but so are lower points. many
> > factors come into play here and affect the loan rate but
> > quite often a good local company dealing with their local
> > bank can come up with reasonable rates.
>
> Local banks seldom finance radio, as there are no attachable
> tangibles. In fact, in medium markets, tangible assests
> generally are less than 10% of the purchase price... and
> they are less than 5% in largetr ones. Most banks will not
> touch single station or single market deals, and most will
> not do radio at all.
>
> > Locally owned or smaller radio corporations are more
> likely
> > work at serving thier local market. This can include a
> > format
> > that may not give them the number one arbitron rating but
> > give them a solid share of the market
>
> This applies in very small markets, with owner operators.
> 50% of such staitons do not make money. Not making money
> does not encourage creativity. If they are in rated markets,
> numbers matter... as numbers indicate how big a response an
> advertiser will get. Independent operators seldom do risky
> formats.


Just because it is a smaller market station, doesn't mean it doesn't make money. I live in market 248, I think. The "Sussex" market. We do have a small amount of stations, but they all make money. Businesses want to advertise on these stations. You really have to know the radio landscape and the the market is. There is more to it than just what number market we are in etc. If you don't live here (or have been to this market) you really don't understand. Each market is different. Market 245 may be much more different than 246. You understand what I am trying to explain?

> > > Be careful what you aske for, as you may get it. And you
>
> > > will not like it.
> >
> > This is where you are wrong again.If I were to get it, I'd
>
> > be happy with it. I Think the cap is a good thing. I think
>
> > the rules on flipping stations (and I don't mean formats)
> is
> >
> > a good thing. And to be honest I think allowing some
> > stations
> > to go dark is a good thing.
>
> There is always someone like you who thinks they can make a
> purse out of a swos ear. So there will always be someoen to
> buy nearly every bad station. The buisness has some kind of
> appeal, especially to fools with money.
>
> I have worked in markets where there has been consolidation
> for 50 years, and there are more varied formats under
> consolidation than without it. I owned a cluster in a market
> of about a million in the 60's and it was only because of
> the leading staitons I had I was able to do things like
> building the country's first FM, to do indigenous language
> programming, to do a classical station, and to do rock on
> FM. None of these made money initially, and an independent
> owner could never do them.
> >
> > >
> > > we are not necessarily smarter... although if this last
> > post
> > > is an example, I would resk a bet on that too... but we
> > know
> > > more of how th ebusiness works. You may think you know
> one
> >
> > > kind of music, but you do not know the business part
> that
> > > must work if radio stations are to succeed.
> >
> > Well if the posts from you and Cat are an example I'd take
>
> > the bet. I love taking money from a sucker. Do you know
> more
> >
> > about the day to day business of radio. Yep, but I can
> learn
> >
> > that. What can't be learned easy is the right music. You
> > really just have to have the ear.
>
> Oh, how absolutely and horribly wrong. That is an arrogant
> statement. The only people who know the music, the right
> music, are the listeners. I would never pretend to tell them
> what to like.

How is that statement arrogant? Yes, companies care somewhat about the listeners, but they want to make lots of money. Thats the main goal. I agree with Mike on this debate.

>
> I learned that when I was about 13 and was invited to be my
> school's rep to a Top 40 staiton's listener panel. We were
> consulted on music, jocks, programming issues. In other
> words, the station, which had about a 25 share, knew it had
> to ask the listeners, not take unilateral decisions.
>
> I have, on numberous ocasions, gone to places I have never
> been before, and created #1 or #2 radio stations... because
> I asked the listeners. Why is that so hard to get?
> >
> > >
> > > I find him eminently more credible than you, although
> Cat
> > > and I have disagreed on some points. Disagreeing in a
> > field
> > > where there are many solutions to one problem is one
> > thing,
> > > but being wrong is another.
> > >
> >
> > Well of course you do. There's only a nickle's worth of
> > difference between you two. I've been to your website
> David.
> >
> > I've seen your Resume. I was impressed, you've done a lot.
>
> > But
> > it also showed me plain as day that even if you, yourself
> > aren't responsible for the sad shape of radio today, you
> are
> >
> > part of that consultan/research/corporate group that is.
> > I especially like the spanish talk radio KTNQ(?) and the
> > K-mart
> > thing.
> > If you're not part of the solution your part of the
> problem.
>
> KTNQ could only have been done with the support of a large
> corporation. It did not make money initially, and is the
> worlds most expensive format.
>
> (Personally, I am most proud of building South America's
> first FM, and making it immensely profitable within less
> than 2 years... in the 60's... and with only two minutes of
> spots an hour)
>
> I disagree about the " sad shape of radio" since just as
> many people use it today as at any time in the last 50
> years. What is happening is that there are more options, not
> worse radio. Radio is what it is. It is not as sexy as
> satellite or an iPod, but it is free, dependable and serves
> 95% of the people well.
>
> By the way, there were consutants and researchers in the
> 50's too. As I said in another post, if you would undergo an
> operation without first talking to a specialist, then your
> point is taken. But we use consultants in every facet of
> life... and it is the right way to get better radio. And "
> research" is just a way of saying " talking with the
> listeners" which is the only way to go.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Check my website www.freewebs.com/radiostuffandnews
</P>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Getting "real" about radio.

> If the listeners makes the determination then why the big
> cut
> of music from the '55 to '64? it's like music never existed
> before then. When MJI (A CC station) cut out the music from
> that time frame there was a big uproar over it. So much so
> that
> they trew the listeners a bone and did a sunday night show
> for
> it.

Radio stations do not research audience groups that are not productive. 55+ listenership will not produce much, if any, revenue. Radio stations definitely focus on the listener, but only on those listeners that advertisers are interested in.
>
> > It makes, still, a station a bad investment. 12% to 15%
> will
> > not pay a typical 7-year financing on a station. If there
> is
> > no gain, why do it. The only case where that type of
> return
> > would be acceptable is an owner operator who wants
> > guaranteed lifetime employment and a moderate income. They
>
> > can pay the loan, maybe baloon it to another 5 years, and
> > end up with all the trade cars and restaurant script they
> > need, and live OK. For other situations, the return is
> > inadequate.
>
> Thats what we need to get back to owner/operators or small
> corporations. Not large 1200 station corporations.

I just explained why this, today, will not happen. Nearly no bank will lend to single, stand-alone radio stations. Banks have consolidated, too.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > That would make it worse. Since small operators would
> be
>
> > No, they won't. It will be just like the small (7 and 7)
> > operators of the 60's and 70's who had big debt service
> and
> > had to maximize profits. Since there was no low cost money
>
> > to borrow, and no equity financing to use, all
> acquisitions
> > came out of profits. And if any market went the wrong way,
>
> > they tightend the screws on the other 6 like you have no
> > idea. Far worse than today, where most group financing is
> by
> > equity, not debt, and smaller groups get much lower cost
> > money than previously available.
>
> Big debt service like CC has? And small corporations can
> avail
> themselves of using equity as well.

CC has very low debt, as almost all its acquisitions were mergers and equity deals, not debt-financed.
>
> > Local banks seldom finance radio, as there are no
> attachable
> > tangibles. In fact, in medium markets, tangible assests
> > generally are less than 10% of the purchase price... and
> > they are less than 5% in largetr ones. Most banks will not
>
> > touch single station or single market deals, and most will
>
> > not do radio at all.
>
> Perhaps that's how the banks in your market and the markets
> you've been in are. But I also notice the word "most". Not
> all will say no. In fact I know a smaller bank that has
> loaned
> money to a radio station. It can go either way.

Even the larger banks will do one of two things... not lend at all (95% of them) or lend to groups. Practically none will lend to a single market station or cluster, unless the buyer has other assets to guarantee with.

I am involved with stations in dozens of markets, and several countries. Financing is nearly impossible. I have had personally tried to buy, with no doable deals... and I have a reasonably good background.
>
> > There is always someone like you who thinks they can make
> a
> > purse out of a swos ear. So there will always be someoen
> to
> > buy nearly every bad station. The buisness has some kind
> of
> > appeal, especially to fools with money.
>
> That's funny. Consultants like you have been trying to make
> silk purses out of a sow's ear for years. And all we the
> listeners
> get is radio that sucks.

As I said, consultants try to create winning stations using the local staff, local research and vast experience. Radio is far more competitive and fragmented, and there are more non-radio alternatives.

> And as I've said I'm not against
> letting
> a station go dark. I think there are too many. Especially on
> the
> AM band.

It will not happen. As I said, there is always someoen who thinks they have a better idea. Sometimes they are right, too.
>
>
> There has been consolidation for a long time David and it
> has
> been slowly draging the quality down.

Docket 80-90 drove quality down, as the existing market revenue had to suport new statins and move ins and upgrades that were not previously possible. It all goes back tot he Bonita Springs case.

Consolidation is only 8 years old in the US. Any real issues predated consolidation and were, in fact, the reason for consolidation.

> But now you have Clear
>
> Channel and Infinity that have gotten larger then they
> should
> have been allowed and they sped it up. As for more varied
> formats. How many Kiss stations are there?

"Kiss" is a name for many formats and stations, all different, all locally researched. In fact, the issue with common names is caused by the internet, which makes service mark clearance very hard. So companies use the names they have registered all over, for different formats.

> And if memory
> serves
> there was one DJ who was VTing for 12 of them. If thats not
> cookie cutter I don't know what is.

That is no more cookie cutter than 200 SRP stations using the same voice tracking in the 70´s or 150 Drake Chennault AC stations using the same voice tracking int he same era... etc.

The stations are still locally programmed, using voices from other places.

> It's nice that you owned that cluster David, but talk to me
> about American radio. Not where you have to run from the
> local
> Junta.

No difference.
>
> > Oh, how absolutely and horribly wrong. That is an arrogant
>
> > statement. The only people who know the music, the right
> > music, are the listeners. I would never pretend to tell
> them
> > what to like.
>
> Oh? and whats arrogant about that statement David? That I
> can
> learn how to handle the day to day business of radio? I can
> learn
> how to sell. People learn how to sell all the time. Or maybe
>
> that I could learn to do traffic? Or production? Or
> promotions?
> These are all skills that can be learned. It is arrogance to
>
> think these skills can't be learned.

What is arrogant is to say, "I know the music." You don´t. The listener does.

> And having taken my trips through management (as much as I
> hate
> it), I know to get good people, put them into place, point
> the
> direction and get the hell out of the way. I like short
> chains of
> command and delegating.

Which is why even the biggest companies have local and regional management, not standardized national policies.
>
> Perhaps you think the comment about having an ear for the
> right
> music is arrogant. Well it's not, for several reasons.
> First, I
> never tell my listeners what to like. They tell ME what they
>
> like, and I take that into consideration. I do a request
> show
> after all.

Arrrgh. No one uses requests as a primary indication. Callers are atypical listeners.

> Second, having an ear for the music is not a
> magic
> wand. Every one makes mistakes, you just can't bat .500 all
> the
> time. But you will get more homers than someone with out it.

You will get 1.000 if you listen to the listeners, not you own taste.
>
> Being a Cleveland boy let me remind you of Papa-Oom-Mow-Mow
> which
> got a boost thanks to Ghoulardi. What NE Ohio oldies station
>
> wouldn't play that? (a CC station) and the same with Desert
> Rat.
> Or how about something from LA? Whittier Blvd. by Thee
> Midnighters.

50% of the population of most major US markets did not grow up in that market. Unknown songs don´t research and are not appreciated.
>
> >
> > I learned that when I was about 13 and was invited to be
> my
> > school's rep to a Top 40 staiton's listener panel. We were
>
> > consulted on music, jocks, programming issues. In other
> > words, the station, which had about a 25 share, knew it
> had
> > to ask the listeners, not take unilateral decisions.
>
> PD's have been making unilateral decisions since the
> begining
> of radio. Wether it is AM, FM, XM/Sirius, streaming internet
> or
> podcasting the PD for good or bad always has the final say.

Actually, a good programmer takes listener feedback and opinion and builds a creative station or an exciting station or a mood station based on the listener, not thier own opinion.
>
> >
> > I have, on numberous ocasions, gone to places I have never
>
> > been before, and created #1 or #2 radio stations...
> because
> > I asked the listeners. Why is that so hard to get?
>
> And again I say talk to me about American radio.

I see. NY, Miami, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, LA, San Francisco, etc., are not US markets?


>I have
> always
> advocated listening to the people who listen to us. It's you
>
> who don't get it. CC doesn't listen to us. Nor does
> Infinity.

Actually, they spend millions to find out what their real listeners want. Day in, day out.

> But people like me do. After all I am a listener too. I'll
> bet
> I listen to more oldies music in a week then you and Cat
> both
> listen to in 2 months. I'm always looking for that next
> great
> Song to play. And as I've said before the Billboard and
> Cashbox charts are a starting point, but not the ending
> point.
> They are not perfect thanks to payola and all the other
> stuff.
> But they are a start. Then look at the bubbling under and
> from
> there look up local charts like the WIXY tune-dex and the
> WKNR
> charts and you will find some gems.

None of which the bulk of listeners give a rat´s posterior about.

> Also don't forget to
> listen
> to other sources and network with collectors for those songs
> we
> all should have heard. Then put your catches out there and
> see
> what the listeners think. That's where the ear comes in.
> Some
> will go into heavy rotation, some medium and some light
> rotation.
> And it will expand your play list. Why is that so hard to
> get?

I have researched over 3000 different titles for an LA oldies station. 75% do not make it. There are no hidden gems. If they are hidden, they are not playable.
>
>
> > KTNQ could only have been done with the support of a large
>
> > corporation. It did not make money initially, and is the
> > worlds most expensive format.
>
> And I will agree to a point. But it is because of the lack
> of
> ownership cap and the flipping of stations that radio has
> become so expensive.

Prices since consolidatin have followed the same multiples based on market revenues and billing as they did before. The fundamentals of making a profit on each station do not change.

> And to be honest KTNQ is a good example of letting stations
> go dark.

I see. The only LA Spanish and local news talk station, which is profitable and has good ratings, should go dark?
>
> >
> > (Personally, I am most proud of building South America's
> > first FM, and making it immensely profitable within less
> > than 2 years... in the 60's... and with only two minutes
> of
> > spots an hour)
>
> Building the first FM and making it profitable is something
> to
> be proud of. I can't fault you for that. But what have you
> done
> in the US to make radio better?

Too many to list. 70 stations, all mostly live and local.
>
> >
> > I disagree about the " sad shape of radio" since just as
> > many people use it today as at any time in the last 50
> > years. What is happening is that there are more options,
> not
> > worse radio. Radio is what it is. It is not as sexy as
> > satellite or an iPod, but it is free, dependable and
> serves
> > 95% of the people well.
>
> Of course you disagree. It's folks like you that have
> brought
> us to this point. It's like a fat cop saying donuts don't
> make
> you fat. Radio is in sad shape and its listenership will
> slowly
> decline. When even 80 year olds are buying computers to do
> email
> and listent to online streams (and this is already
> happening)
> , and 45 year olds are buying mp3 players and XM/Sirius
> rather
> than listen to regular radio, you will have a slow decline.
> When
> all new cars have XM/Sirius and they are readily and cheaply
>
> available regular radio will be in real trouble.

The same percentage of people use radio as in 1975. The PUR is only 2% below the level from that year, despite a myriad of alternative leisure time activities. Radio billing is growing, and the industry is mature. No one expects radio to grow in listening, and it probably will shrink over time. But it is not moribund.
>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: radio

> Yes I'm a high school radio guy. Whats a matter Cat? mad
> that
> I do it better than 99 44/100% of you corporate types?

The litmus test for radio is whether anyone is listening. Please show that 99.44% of all listeners in your market are listening to you.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Getting "real" about radio.

> >
> > The only important people are the listeners. They know
> what
> > they want. Clear Channel owns two really good research
> > compnaies, and you can bet theat they asked what people
> > wanted to hear. All a consultant does is help interpret
> and
> > implement research. Neither a PD nor a consultant makes
> > determinations on what the local listeners want... the
> > listeners themselves do.
>
> Ha, what a laugh. The main goal is to make money. Do you
> think the listeners of a station that flipped (example is
> CBS FM) wanted it to flip? Did they want their favorite
> station to change? No! That wasn't "the listeners" decision.

Radio stations which are commercial must program to listener groups which advertisers want to reach. Otherwise, you are building a synagogue in a town with no Jews.

The fact that CBS-FM changed had nothing to do with the station itself, but, rather, with the demand for advertising on the station. In such a situation, where there was a marked decline in audience in salable demos and in total billing, the station simply picked a different audience group, researched its desires, and gave them a product Infinity believed would satisfy them. This is still listener driven... just a different listener group. Remember, less than one out of every 12 people in NY even listened occasionally to CBS-FM.
>
> Just because it is a smaller market station, doesn't mean it
> doesn't make money. I live in market 248, I think. The
> "Sussex" market. We do have a small amount of stations, but
> they all make money.

You have audited their books? Many smaller market stations, particualrly after Docket 80-90, could not make money.

> Businesses want to advertise on these
> stations. You really have to know the radio landscape and
> the the market is. There is more to it than just what number
> market we are in etc. If you don't live here (or have been
> to this market) you really don't understand. Each market is
> different. Market 245 may be much more different than 246.
> You understand what I am trying to explain?

No. Every market has a finite economy, a percentage of which is spent on advertising. If the ad pie does not spread thick enough for indivisual stations to make money, some lose money. This applies in LA or in Ishpeming.


> > Oh, how absolutely and horribly wrong. That is an arrogant
>
> > statement. The only people who know the music, the right
> > music, are the listeners. I would never pretend to tell
> them
> > what to like.
>
> How is that statement arrogant? Yes, companies care somewhat
> about the listeners, but they want to make lots of money.
> Thats the main goal. I agree with Mike on this debate.

"Arrogant" is believing that one has golden ears and knows what the listener wants without asking them. I doubt Mike has ever done any sound research in his life.

Stations make mony by pleasing listeners. The more listeners pleased, the more money made. Very simple.

 

[jakej]

Re: great radio

> The creativity is the glue you put all the rest together
> with. It is not the most obvious thing, but it is what makes
> a good radio station great. And there can be lots of
> enthusiasm in it.
>
> Remember, doing great radio is not about your picking the
> music. It is about makeing listeners prefer you over all
> other options. And there is a definite mix of art and
> science there... and both must be present.

Thank you for the above statements. I'm glad to hear that great radio is not all science. I wasn't expecting to hear that from you! And I'm relieved to hear that creativity is a glue and not something intended to be descriptive of your means of song selection. Surveying listeners and then spoon-feeding to them the songs that they say they most want to hear is not creative. In fact, it's the polar opposite of creativity.

 

[radiolover78]

Re: Getting "real" about radio.

> > >
> > > The only important people are the listeners. They know
> > what
> > > they want. Clear Channel owns two really good research
> > > compnaies, and you can bet theat they asked what people
> > > wanted to hear. All a consultant does is help interpret
> > and
> > > implement research. Neither a PD nor a consultant makes
> > > determinations on what the local listeners want... the
> > > listeners themselves do.
> >
> > Ha, what a laugh. The main goal is to make money. Do you
> > think the listeners of a station that flipped (example is
> > CBS FM) wanted it to flip? Did they want their favorite
> > station to change? No! That wasn't "the listeners"
> decision.
>
> Radio stations which are commercial must program to listener
> groups which advertisers want to reach. Otherwise, you are
> building a synagogue in a town with no Jews.
>
> The fact that CBS-FM changed had nothing to do with the
> station itself, but, rather, with the demand for advertising
> on the station. In such a situation, where there was a
> marked decline in audience in salable demos and in total
> billing, the station simply picked a different audience
> group, researched its desires, and gave them a product
> Infinity believed would satisfy them. This is still listener
> driven... just a different listener group. Remember, less
> than one out of every 12 people in NY even listened
> occasionally to CBS-FM.
> >
> > Just because it is a smaller market station, doesn't mean
> it
> > doesn't make money. I live in market 248, I think. The
> > "Sussex" market. We do have a small amount of stations,
> but
> > they all make money.
>
> You have audited their books? Many smaller market stations,
> particualrly after Docket 80-90, could not make money.

You should really live IN the market to understand. I don't think you can get THE WHOLE picture just by a couple of numbers. No matter how small, if its real local, it will make money, and lots of it. Thats if radio is one of the only "local options". There are other choices to advertise on, but in this market, radio is a big way to promote your business. In fact, stations in unrated markets can make quite a bit of money if it is the only local station in town and the area has enough businesses that want to advertise.

>
> > Businesses want to advertise on these
> > stations. You really have to know the radio landscape and
> > the the market is. There is more to it than just what
> number
> > market we are in etc. If you don't live here (or have been
>
> > to this market) you really don't understand. Each market
> is
> > different. Market 245 may be much more different than 246.
>
> > You understand what I am trying to explain?
>
> No. Every market has a finite economy, a percentage of which
> is spent on advertising. If the ad pie does not spread thick
> enough for indivisual stations to make money, some lose
> money. This applies in LA or in Ishpeming.

Again, you can not just understand the landscape of the radio market, just by a couple numbers.

>
>
> > > Oh, how absolutely and horribly wrong. That is an
> arrogant
> >
> > > statement. The only people who know the music, the right
>
> > > music, are the listeners. I would never pretend to tell
> > them
> > > what to like.
> >
> > How is that statement arrogant? Yes, companies care
> somewhat
> > about the listeners, but they want to make lots of money.
> > Thats the main goal. I agree with Mike on this debate.
>
> "Arrogant" is believing that one has golden ears and knows
> what the listener wants without asking them. I doubt Mike
> has ever done any sound research in his life.

I'm not sure if that was what Mike meant, perhaps I looked at it differently, but if that was what he meant, you're right.

>
> Stations make mony by pleasing listeners. The more listeners
> pleased, the more money made. Very simple.
>

True, but there are stations, according to ratings, that have a mediocre(sp) amount of listeners, but bill very well. PLJ in New York is an example. Cash cow, but low ratings.
<P ID="signature">______________
Check my website www.freewebs.com/radiostuffandnews
</P>

 

[jakej]

Re: radio

> Please don't question my passion and enthusiasm for Radio.
> You don't know a thing about me. If I weren't enthusiastic
> about our craft, I wouldn't be on these boards sharing
> real-life radio information with mis-informed youngsters
> like Mike.
> He may be enthusiastic but he's often mis-guided about the
> hard-knocks world of real, everyday, commercial radio.

I'm sorry, Oldies Cat; I guess a man is innocent until proven guilty. But enthusiasm isn't necessarily evidenced by the fact that someone posts a lot on this board. The motivation for doing that could be something much, much different.
I'm not saying this is necessarily true in your case, but maybe some people got knocked around a little bit too hard in that hard-knocks world of radio, and when someone like Mike comes along they see a little bit of themselves in him, they see a little bit of what they used to be like, and they remember some of the idealism that they once had. But then they learned some hard, cruel lessons along the way, things didn't work out as they had hoped, and now they for whatever reason feel compelled to try and bring him down as hard as they were once brought down.
I don't know, I may be a fool, but I've been fighting what I consider to be a "Good Fight" for years now, and I'm not about to give up. No one's given me a chance yet but I believe in Lance Armstrong and I believe in miracles, and someday someone somewhere is going to give me an opportunity to really make a difference in this business. "You may say I'm a dreamer/But I'm not the only one". And yes, Oldies Cat, "I hope someday you join us"!

 

[OldiesCat]

Getting "real"

I don't necessarily buy into that.

There are a whole host of strategies, tactics and execution radio stations can do regardless of locale. It is up to the LOCAL OPERATORS to make their stations local. But an independent, objective perspective can be a huge help.

>
> You should really live IN the market to understand. I don't
> think you can get THE WHOLE picture just by a couple of
> numbers. No matter how small, if its real local, it will
> make money, and lots of it. Thats if radio is one of the
> only "local options". There are other choices to advertise
> on, but in this market, radio is a big way to promote your
> business. In fact, stations in unrated markets can make
> quite a bit of money if it is the only local station in town
> and the area has enough businesses that want to advertise.
>
> >
> > > Businesses want to advertise on these
> > > stations. You really have to know the radio landscape
> and
> > > the the market is. There is more to it than just what
> > number
> > > market we are in etc. If you don't live here (or have
> been
> >
> > > to this market) you really don't understand. Each market
>
> > is
> > > different. Market 245 may be much more different than
> 246.
> >
> > > You understand what I am trying to explain?
> >
> > No. Every market has a finite economy, a percentage of
> which
> > is spent on advertising. If the ad pie does not spread
> thick
> > enough for indivisual stations to make money, some lose
> > money. This applies in LA or in Ishpeming.
>
> Again, you can not just understand the landscape of the
> radio market, just by a couple numbers.
>
> >
> >
> > > > Oh, how absolutely and horribly wrong. That is an
> > arrogant
> > >
> > > > statement. The only people who know the music, the
> right
> >
> > > > music, are the listeners. I would never pretend to
> tell
> > > them
> > > > what to like.
> > >
> > > How is that statement arrogant? Yes, companies care
> > somewhat
> > > about the listeners, but they want to make lots of
> money.
> > > Thats the main goal. I agree with Mike on this debate.
> >
> > "Arrogant" is believing that one has golden ears and knows
>
> > what the listener wants without asking them. I doubt Mike
> > has ever done any sound research in his life.
>
> I'm not sure if that was what Mike meant, perhaps I looked
> at it differently, but if that was what he meant, you're
> right.
>
> >
> > Stations make mony by pleasing listeners. The more
> listeners
> > pleased, the more money made. Very simple.
> >
>
> True, but there are stations, according to ratings, that
> have a mediocre(sp) amount of listeners, but bill very well.
> PLJ in New York is an example. Cash cow, but low ratings.
>

 

[OldiesCat]

great radio

In fact, one of radio's problems is that the science has overtaken the art, to a certain extent.

However, that does not mean all "corporate" (commercial) radio is evil. Mike Dane, the King Of Non-Com in central Ohio or somewhere, slams several of us because we're in commercial radio AND we view things differently than he. Since most radio trends are (and have always been) set by commercially-owned stations, he should think for just a moment before he automatically slams everything put forth by a number of us. Where Mike views radio is from a relatively secluded place- many of us (this doesn't make us smarter nor better) are in places where we can view radio from a much bigger, broader and different perspective.

Differences in opinion are how we keep things fresh. Disagreeing for the sake of doing so, just so he can piss on his little corner of radio, is what it is--
a pitiful attempt to run with the big dogs. And, for radio's contenders it is very easy to pick out the pretenders (M. Dane).

>
> Thank you for the above statements. I'm glad to hear that
> great radio is not all science. I wasn't expecting to hear
> that from you! And I'm relieved to hear that creativity is a
> glue and not something intended to be descriptive of your
> means of song selection. Surveying listeners and then
> spoon-feeding to them the songs that they say they most want
> to hear is not creative. In fact, it's the polar opposite of
> creativity.
>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Getting "real" about radio.

>
> You should really live IN the market to understand. I don't
> think you can get THE WHOLE picture just by a couple of
> numbers. No matter how small, if its real local, it will
> make money, and lots of it.

No it won't. I was in charge of an AM and FM in Lake City, FL in the late 80's. We had losts of local programming, including a morning news and info block, one at noon, one at 6 and all the local HS sports.

Along came 80-90 and gave the market, which supported 5 stations, a total of 10. The new ones were satellite programmed, and sold for very cheap. No one would buy the community stations (ours and the other heritage broadcaster from Live Oak). revenues dipped, since 10 signals now divided what was just an OK existence for 5.

The HS started asking for rights to the game. The city officials who appeared on the morning shows said they could not do it any more, as it was unfair to the new stations.

We had to sell, at a loss, after 5 years of trying... and the community lost its localized programming.

From the 50's through the last finacial surveys int he 90's, half of all US stations did not make money. Most were in smaller markets.

> Thats if radio is one of the
> only "local options". There are other choices to advertise
> on, but in this market, radio is a big way to promote your
> business. In fact, stations in unrated markets can make
> quite a bit of money if it is the only local station in town
> and the area has enough businesses that want to advertise.

There are very few of these single service markets. And most have a plethora of signals from every adjacent county, too.
>

> > Stations make mony by pleasing listeners. The more
> listeners
> > pleased, the more money made. Very simple.
> >
>
> True, but there are stations, according to ratings, that
> have a mediocre(sp) amount of listeners, but bill very well.
> PLJ in New York is an example. Cash cow, but low ratings.
>

No, it has high ratings... where they matter. In fact, its AQH in the target demo is among the top 25 stations in the entire US.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: great radio

> > The creativity is the glue you put all the rest together
> > with. It is not the most obvious thing, but it is what
> makes
> > a good radio station great. And there can be lots of
> > enthusiasm in it.
> >
> > Remember, doing great radio is not about your picking the
> > music. It is about makeing listeners prefer you over all
> > other options. And there is a definite mix of art and
> > science there... and both must be present.
>
> Thank you for the above statements. I'm glad to hear that
> great radio is not all science. I wasn't expecting to hear
> that from you! And I'm relieved to hear that creativity is a
> glue and not something intended to be descriptive of your
> means of song selection. Surveying listeners and then
> spoon-feeding to them the songs that they say they most want
> to hear is not creative. In fact, it's the polar opposite of
> creativity.

Ah, but the creativity is in the blend, the mix, the jocks, the promotions, the imaging, the whole station. It is the difference between boards in a lumberyard and a beautiful house. The house is still made of the basic, sound, seasoned and seald lumber... but it is in the putting together that it ecomes magic.

Not playing the songs listeners want to hear is the same as custom building a house for a family, and then painting it a color the do not like, removing the toilets, and putting the kitchen in the attic. After very little time, the house will be remodeled or changed for a new one.

The only possibility besides giving listeners the songs they want is giving listeners songs they don't want. If I order chocolate at the Baskin Robbins, and they give me strawberry, I refuse to take it and pay for it. If they always do this, I stop going back.

People come to a station in the expectation of hearing what they like, not what they don't like and what they are not familiar with. I have been fortunate to have competitors who do not understand this, and hope to have many more. Judging by the folks posting on this thread, I have an easy career ahead of me.
>