The radio sucks in my market

[nd2023]

I'm between the New York and Philly markets, and I can honestly say that the radio stations suck in my area. 4 years ago, there were some great stations, but they have all gone. In New York, there was Blink 102.7, KTU that actually played current dance, CBS-FM, K-Rock, Lite FM that was "lite". In Philly, there was Oldies 98.1, 96.5 The Point, Mix 95.7, Y100, Sunny 104.5 and no urban crap on 107.9. In just 4 years, the stations that I liked had all changed their format or tweaked a lot.
When I was in St Louis just this year, I liked so many more stations in that market like Movin 101.1, KLOU 103.3, and 106.5 The Arch. And when the tropo hits and I get Long Island stations, I like those more than my locals. I got XM recently, and I love it.

 

[rapking]

Y100 and Blink 102.7 Sucks ( Thank god, they are gone ) . One man junk, is next man paradise .

 

[BRNout]

The grass is always greener...... ;D

 

[vibe]

I'm sorta surprised as to the relative lack of interest/response to this topic. Look at all the people who have switched over to satelite. I would guess that one of the reasons is that conventional radio sucked and sucked badly.
Here in Central Mass the FM band is cluttered with a lot of crappe from Boston, Providence, Hartford, Springfield. In SW Fla the stations from Tampa-Ft. Myers, Naples equally suck. The common theme-playing the same tired old "hits' (and at this point they need to be retired).
It was refreshing to go to Brattleboro VT this week hit the scan button, land on 92.7 and have the first song come from the Grateful Dead.
Are there any markets where radio doesn't suck?

 

[CrazeeCarroll1]

I am here in Rockford IL where radio is just very very bad ???. I have given up on local radio and moved on to Sirius and MP3's... We have two radio companies that owns stations here in town The Cloud Company AKA Cumulus and another one called Maverick Media and their stations are awful... Rockford being for the most part a conservative town pretty much sums up what radio is like with no fun and for the most part just out right boring with all having predictable play list... CC1

 

[Don62]

Are there any markets where radio doesn't suck?

Very few, IMHO.

Travel to any city and you hear the same formats, same liners, same everything. VT reins supreme, and even the NTs have dropped talk, going for satellite talk.

"twas was happens when the accountants take over the medium.

 

[davideduardo]

Are there any markets where radio doesn't suck?

Very few, IMHO.

What you mean is that there is no station that you like, or there is no station with the format you would most like. That does not mean that the immense majority of listeners are not happy. The remaining 10 or 20 per market come here to whine.

Travel to any city and you hear the same formats, same liners, same everything.

Gee, every market has Jay Leno and Desperate Housewives, too. Maybe the reason is that certain shows and certain formats are broadly accepted all over America due to the commonality that binds us.

VT reins supreme,

Untrue.

and even the NTs have dropped talk, going for satellite talk.

Syndicated talk, just like networked TV, has been the mainstay of talk outside the top, top markets for decades.

"twas was happens when the accountants take over the medium.

Actually, all your unreal and untrue comments are, at the root, based on providing good programming listeners want.

 

[Don62]

You call today's radio programming as "good?"

Are you wacked or what?

It's the blandest thing I've ever heard.

Limited playlists, fewer announcers who read primarily liner cards, commercial after commercial.

Radio isn't a part of many peoples' lives anymore.

Oh, yeah, put out that stupid self-serving broadcast industry-sponsored "news" release claiming listenership "is up."

By how much? You haven't quantified that contention, which is likely up, if it really is, by a tiny percentage.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Why Radio Sucks

"Listenership" means nothing. Let's talk about TSL.

Pre-packaged, homogenized pap from syndication or VT has driven TSL into the toilet. If Leno was on for 4 hours a day, how many people would sit through it? BTW, how many people would listen to Leno if he was limited to talking 4 times an hour over music intros?

Despite the endless repetition, the fact that creativity has been largely removed by current programming practices, and the lack of content that is truly meaningful to the listener, people DO tune in looking for entertainment or information. Unfortunately, it doesn't take long for them to either push the button, switch to their iPod, or plug into the Internet to get what radio no longer delivers - a variety of music within a genre, with relatable information or entertainment elements interspersed to create a sense of community.

The sooner that bean counters decide that radio is on the ropes, and that they'd better get out, the sooner that real broadcasters will get back into the business and reinvent the medium once again. Radio isn't broken - management is.

 

[davideduardo]

You call today's radio programming as "good?"

Absolutely. In quality and quantity, both.

Let's take the glory years of Top 40... maybe 1960 is a good year.

And let's take Cleveland, OH. At that time, a top 15 market by the metro definitions of the day. There were three Top 40's, 3 MORs, and two r&b stations, one a daytimer and the other a Clas IV with bad coverage. FM did not count, as there was not enough listening to th whole band to get a tenth of a share point of listening.

Today, there are 30 commercial statios and 8 non-commercials, and these are the "standard definition" formats available.

Alternativ, Big Band /nostalgia, Christian, Contemporary Christian, Christian talk (2), Classical (2) classic rock, country (one AM and one FM), family hits, gospel (2), hot AC (2), modern rock, new rock, news talk (2), NPR/Jazz, News talk sports, oldies (2), R&B oldies, rock, smooth jazz, soft AC, sports, (2), spanish, talk, urban AC, Urban, and variety (4)

There are 23 owners, vs. 8 in 1960.

Limited playlists, fewer announcers who read primarily liner cards, commercial after commercial.

Of the three Top 40's, all played just that: 40 songs. And the total top 40 share was arond 50. People loved hearing their favorite songs over and over, every time they tuned in, just like today.

Radio isn't a part of many peoples' lives anymore.

Over 95% of Americans use radio. You really have to stop making up these lies and exaggerations. fine, you don't like terrestrial radio. Terrestrial radio has delegated to me the job of saying we do not like you, either. Please listen to an iPod, satellite listener-supported radio or web streams like Pandora where you can design a station to your very, very niche taste.

Oh, yeah, put out that stupid self-serving broadcast industry-sponsored "news" release claiming listenership "is up."

Another lie. Paragon is a research comapany that sells services to individual stations, not "the industry." They obviously wanted to do a study that would portray them as competent researcher. Research companies have only their reputation to stand on, so I would assume that the sutud would hold to scrutiny. In whatever case, the broadcast industry did not sponsor the study. A vendor serving the industry did. You have to stop making things up.

By how much? You haven't quantified that contention, which is likely up, if it really is, by a tiny percentage.

I have no idea what the study said. The company is providing the report to its clients, I think. I am not one of them.

 

[oldiesfan6479]

I guess this isn't a good time to again "talk up" (pun intended)
the classic radio art form of "hitting the post." ;D

 

[Don62]

You have a poor sense for sarcasm. You take everything sooooooooooo literally, so monochromatically.

The original poster, ole' Don62, is a famous dealer in hyperbole, exaggeration and the untruth here. I clearly identified a bunch of things he posted just today that are not true, or falsely interpreted. From saying that Paragon's recent study was "industry sponsored" to complaining about today's rotations when the rotations at the time of popularity of the music he seems to like were vastly tighter.

Sorry, Dave, once again, you're off.

Despite your reliance on one solitary market (which doesn't mean squat), there are fewer owners and less listening overall, according to this study.

http://www.futureofmusic.org/research/radiostudy06execsum.cfm

Fewer radio companies: The number of companies that own radio stations peaked in 1995 and has declined dramatically over the past decade. This has occurred largely because of industry consolidation but partly because many of the hundreds of new licenses issued since 1995 have gone to a handful of companies and organizations.

Larger radio companies: Radio-station holdings of the ten largest companies in the industry increased by almost fifteen times from 1985 to 2005. Over that same period, holdings of the fifty largest companies increased almost sevenfold.
# Increasing revenue concentration: National concentration of advertising revenue increased from 12 percent market share for the top four companies in 1993 to 50 percent market share for the top four companies in 2004.

National concentration of listenership continued in 2005—the top four firms have 48 percent of the listeners, and the top ten firms have almost two-thirds of listeners [see Figure 1].

# Declining listenership: Across 155 markets, radio listenership has declined over the past fourteen years for which data are available, [size=10pt]a 22 percent drop[/size] since its peak in 1989.

 

[davideduardo]

Sorry, Dave, once again, you're off.

Despite your reliance on one solitary market (which doesn't mean squat), there are fewer owners and less listening overall, according to this study.

What are you talking about now? What "one" market?

# Declining listenership: Across 155 markets, radio listenership has declined over the past fourteen years for which data are available, [size=10pt]a 22 percent drop[/size] since its peak in 1989.

[/quote]

There are a number of ways of measuring listenership. One is cume, similar to the circulation of a newspaper, and a measure of different people reached. Using the many PPM makrkets now currency or precurrency, the reach or cume of radio is around 95%, the same as it was in the 80's.... or the 60's for that matter.

There is also time spent listening. This is the one that is down... and logically so. There are far more entertainment options today than there were 20 years ago. Newspaper readership and page views are both off. TV network viewing time is way off. Time is divided between things like video games, DVD viewing, etc., etc. All traditional media is "off" but radio continues to be a very strong and efficient medium. Since ads are priced on delivery, the price dynamically adjusts for audience delivery of each station. The delivery of the medium is immaterial; agencies don't buy radio or TV or print... they buy stations and papers and magazines.

 

[davideduardo]

Despite your reliance on one solitary market (which doesn't mean squat), there are fewer owners...

You missed my point of the earlier post... in the years around 1960, using Cleveland as an example, there were 8 owners of stations in that top market. Today, there are nearly 5 times as many stations, and 24 owners.

The expansion of the number of stations through the 90's created a scenario where nearly half of all US stations were not profitable. If you want to blame consolidation on anyone, it's the FCC and things like Docket 80-90.

 

[TheFonz]

There are a number of ways of measuring listenership. One is cume, similar to the circulation of a newspaper, and a measure of different people reached.

A strange analogy. Newspapers have "paid circulation".........................a list of paid subscribers or cash in hand from vendors. How can radio possibly know the number of people who listen to a certain radio station at a certain time of day?

 

[davideduardo]

There are a number of ways of measuring listenership. One is cume, similar to the circulation of a newspaper, and a measure of different people reached.

A strange analogy. Newspapers have "paid circulation".........................a list of paid subscribers or cash in hand from vendors. How can radio possibly know the number of people who listen to a certain radio station at a certain time of day?

Whether a paper is paid for or not is not the issue to an advertiser. Audited circulation is. That is why the ABC audits all good papers, and produces figures on actual circulation, not copies printed.

In radio, a statistical sample of radio listening can be used to produce very accurate estimates of listenership by the minute today.

 

[TheFonz]

There are a number of ways of measuring listenership. One is cume, similar to the circulation of a newspaper, and a measure of different people reached.

A strange analogy. Newspapers have "paid circulation".........................a list of paid subscribers or cash in hand from vendors. How can radio possibly know the number of people who listen to a certain radio station at a certain time of day?

Whether a paper is paid for or not is not the issue to an advertiser. Audited circulation is. That is why the ABC audits all good papers, and produces figures on actual circulation, not copies printed.

In radio, a statistical sample of radio listening can be used to produce very accurate estimates of listenership by the minute today.

I don't think I'd want to spend my advertising dollar on a "statistical sample". Show me a list of addresses that are going to hear my message.

 

[davideduardo]

I don't think I'd want to spend my advertising dollar on a "statistical sample". Show me a list of addresses that are going to hear my message.

No advertiser asks for this, print or electronic. Please, if you are going to argue a point, make the point soewhat related to the way the advertising and media businesses actually work.

In any case, answering your points...

You have no more way of knowing when a person is going to listen to the radio (future = crystal ball) than you do of knowing if a newspaper subscriber is going to even open the paper, let alone read a specific section, page and advertisement.

All media usage studies are based on using past performance as a way of estimating future performance.

In the case of the electroinc media, the data is vastly more accurate as it portrays actual historic individual usage. In print, it just means the paper was dropped on the doorstep, but does not show readership at all, let alone that of the ad itself.

 

[johnnyu]

Satelity ???????? Under no circumstances would I ever pay to listen to the radio.

 

[TheFonz]

Satelity ???????? Under no circumstances would I ever pay to listen to the radio.

I do pay to listen to radio. We can't argue with your decision until you tell us what you DO pay for (cell phone, high speed internet, cable/satellite TV, movie tickets, gas for a vehicle that gets less than 20 mpg, etc).