• 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

This is not your father's 50-something

radiofriend1 said:
majority of the spot buys today are 25-54 and 18-49, period

and that isn't radio's fault.
What I find fascinating is that you never address the core issue of why people stop listening in the first place. You quote the same demographic numbers ad nauseam, but you don't venture a guess as to why your very important demographic is leaving terrestrial radio in greater numbers than those who are older than age 50 (although for the first four years of that decade they are in the desirable demographic, and then fall off within one year). When I ask you to theorize where radio might be in the future, you say you ain't Miss Cleo. Apparently, you haven't give the medium much thought other than how much commission can be made on the next sale. As I said at the start, fewer people in their teens listen to radio and do not have the radio habit and they are leaving terrestrial radio in big numbers--and there are figures to support that statement.
 
Anyacat said:
radiofriend1 said:
majority of the spot buys today are 25-54 and 18-49, period

and that isn't radio's fault.
What I find fascinating is that you never address the core issue of why people stop listening in the first place. You quote the same demographic numbers ad nauseam, but you don't venture a guess as to why your very important demographic is leaving terrestrial radio in greater numbers than those who are older than age 50 (although for the first four years of that decade they are in the desirable demographic, and then fall off within one year). When I ask you to theorize where radio might be in the future, you say you ain't Miss Cleo. Apparently, you haven't give the medium much thought other than how much commission can be made on the next sale. As I said at the start, fewer people in their teens listen to radio and do not have the radio habit and they are leaving terrestrial radio in big numbers--and there are figures to support that statement.

they leave because there are more choices. U can pontificate ad nauseum yourself with the "they must be leaving radio cuz it sucks" position----but that's rather hollow.

Q: are the main 4 TV networks doing OK today? (with highly rated shows like 24, lost, housewives, deal/no deal, grey's, csi, etc)?

very simple, just answer please
 
Anyacat said:
What I find fascinating is that you never address the core issue of why people stop listening in the first place. You quote the same demographic numbers ad nauseam, but you don't venture a guess as to why your very important demographic is leaving terrestrial radio in greater numbers than those who are older than age 50 (although for the first four years of that decade they are in the desirable demographic, and then fall off within one year). When I ask you to theorize where radio might be in the future, you say you ain't Miss Cleo. Apparently, you haven't give the medium much thought other than how much commission can be made on the next sale. As I said at the start, fewer people in their teens listen to radio and do not have the radio habit and they are leaving terrestrial radio in big numbers--and there are figures to support that statement.

Actually, the attrition in the lower end of the sales demos is exceeded by the attrition in 55+. 55+ is not served by terrestrial radio except as a continuation of serving viable demos. So it is natural that over-55's listen less, because radio has zero interest in attracting them.

18-24's are off, but not in as astounding a fashion as alarmists would say.

From Arbitron, Los Angeles, 1998 to 2006 single book comparison (pre satellite, very early in DSL development, pre-WiFi, pre iPod).

1998 Persons 18-24
96.9% used radio weekly
Average use was 22 hours 15 minutes per person. Decline in usage of about 5%

2006 Persons 18-24
93.8% used radio weekly
Average use was 19 hours 15 minutes. decline of listenin span of 14%.

Considering all the new alternatives for entertainment, this is not bad. Concern? Sure. Disaster? Nope.

In 55+, the usage weekly is down from 96.3% to 92.1%, more than in 18-24!!!
 
the real thing is they are just pissed cuz oldies format is fading away. same crowd who whined incessantly about cbs-fm going away. and we see the new oldies station in nyc getting tremendous ratings, right? ::)

so, naturally, they blame corporate radio-----of course
 
People are listening to less radio because they have alternatives that do not suck as much as radio now sucks. I hope that answer is simple enough. When people who have grown up listening to radio and who have the radio habit leave radio it means there is something wrong with radio, not with the people. So, you can put it down to a bunch of malcontents who are angry because their oldies stations are gone or maybe we're gone from a medium that no longer cares what we listen to or how we make purchasing decisions, to put it in terms that you can relate to. You think Corporate Radio is a good thing, fine, perhaps you like lifeless programming, as long as you can sell an ad against it. Maybe you think live voices on the radio are old fashion. Maybe you think the on air talent is a pain to deal with because they don't understand that making a profit is far more important than creating good radio (which really can be done simultaneously but it costs money) Rock radio has become a final option, the last place some one will look for interesting programming, music or information. It's there when the IPod is on the fritz and that's about it, its background music to keep me awake on my drive home as I punch one button after another looking for something. I don't even use a clock radio anymore, but I do tune in cable news for information I used to get on the radio (entertainment and music is, of course, out of the question). I'd like to think that any decrease in numbers would make radio think, but as you proved, you don't think at all, believing somehow that you can continue to attract people with corporate crap. When was the last time that radio introduced you to interesting new music, or new music at all? Radio used to be immediate, live and local--all anathema to the radio honchos who look upon it as nothing more than an advertising cash cow. And I won't even touch what kind of unpleasant things can happen if a major corporation such as the Bush-friendly Clear Channel owned 14 radio stations, three television stations, a couple of cable outlets and a newspaper in one major market. So you guys can wallow around in your "radio is fine" nirvana, but the truth is once the camel's nose is in the tent, the whole animal will soon follow and you could find yourself out in the cold. So, call it pontificating, but you should be concerned if only one person stop listening to radio because listeners are no longer captive and no longer replaceable.
 
Anyacat said:
People are listening to less radio because they have alternatives that do not suck as much as radio now sucks. I hope that answer is simple enough. When people who have grown up listening to radio and who have the radio habit leave radio it means there is something wrong with radio, not with the people. So, you can put it down to a bunch of malcontents who are angry because their oldies stations are gone or maybe we're gone from a medium that no longer cares what we listen to or how we make purchasing decisions, to put it in terms that you can relate to. You think Corporate Radio is a good thing, fine, perhaps you like lifeless programming, as long as you can sell an ad against it. Maybe you think live voices on the radio are old fashion. Maybe you think the on air talent is a pain to deal with because they don't understand that making a profit is far more important than creating good radio (which really can be done simultaneously but it costs money) Rock radio has become a final option, the last place some one will look for interesting programming, music or information. It's there when the IPod is on the fritz and that's about it, its background music to keep me awake on my drive home as I punch one button after another looking for something. I don't even use a clock radio anymore, but I do tune in cable news for information I used to get on the radio (entertainment and music is, of course, out of the question). I'd like to think that any decrease in numbers would make radio think, but as you proved, you don't think at all, believing somehow that you can continue to attract people with corporate crap. When was the last time that radio introduced you to interesting new music, or new music at all? Radio used to be immediate, live and local--all anathema to the radio honchos who look upon it as nothing more than an advertising cash cow. And I won't even touch what kind of unpleasant things can happen if a major corporation such as the Bush-friendly Clear Channel owned 14 radio stations, three television stations, a couple of cable outlets and a newspaper in one major market. So you guys can wallow around in your "radio is fine" nirvana, but the truth is once the camel's nose is in the tent, the whole animal will soon follow and you could find yourself out in the cold. So, call it pontificating, but you should be concerned if only one person stop listening to radio because listeners are no longer captive and no longer replaceable.

i never said radio is perfect. but i also refuse to put terrestrial radio on a death watch cuz a handful of bitter sour people who couldn't make it in the biz are carping about how all radio sucks and is not worth listening to

U don't like? then PLEASE go to something else----that is the wonderful thing about living in america, lotsa choices

ps- i note with interested you refused to answer my question

correct answer is: YES, network tv is doing pretty well. ain't perfect but nothing is. and i distinctly remember in the early and mid eighties all the pronouncements that network tv would be pretty much toast by the mid 90's because off all the choices cable tv would offer

choices are GOOD. radio can't go back to pre-consolidation (because time cannot be reversed) so plz deal with the real world of radio in the 2000's
 
oldies format

Well, the hard truth is that Oldies as we've known it is over. But it had to evolve someday, eventually. And, there will be a lot of hurt feelings and the other hard truth is that in nearly every market in America where Oldies got the boot, it hasn't been replaced. And that speaks volumes about the revenue potential of a format whose average age today is about 60. If you're in that demo (55 and older), load up your CD changer or get that iPod.

Had Oldies programmers simply not waited so long to get a clue, who knows. Oh, well.
 
Re: oldies format

Oldies Cat said:
Well, the hard truth is that Oldies as we've known it is over. But it had to evolve someday, eventually. And, there will be a lot of hurt feelings and the other hard truth is that in nearly every market in America where Oldies got the boot, it hasn't been replaced. And that speaks volumes about the revenue potential of a format whose average age today is about 60. If you're in that demo (55 and older), load up your CD changer or get that iPod.

Had Oldies programmers simply not waited so long to get a clue, who knows. Oh, well.

Even though I'm only in my 40's the Oldies format is dying as far as terrestrial radio goes. However, there's great alternatives out there between satellite and internet streams. Hopefully more people will discover them and become accustomed to using the technologies to make it available to themselves.
 
Anyacat said:
People are listening to less radio because they have alternatives that do not suck as much as radio now sucks. I hope that answer is simple enough. When people who have grown up listening to radio and who have the radio habit leave radio it means there is something wrong with radio, not with the people.

People are listening less to radio because there are alternatives that didn't exist even 10 years ago much less in the heyday of the big AM top 40 blasters. Do you really think that WABC, WLS, KHJ, etc. would have had the numbers they did if IpoDs, CD-Rs, subscription music services, MTV, etc. had existed in 1972? Most markets also have many more radio choices today than there were then...FM was a non-factor anywhere but the largest cities. You're twisting the facts to support bogus conclusions.
 
radiofriend1 said:
Q: are the main 4 TV networks doing OK today? (with highly rated shows like 24, lost, housewives, deal/no deal, grey's, csi, etc)?

Well, you've convinced ME. Out of 23 radio stations in my market, I now agree that 4 will survive.
 
TheFonz said:
radiofriend1 said:
Q: are the main 4 TV networks doing OK today? (with highly rated shows like 24, lost, housewives, deal/no deal, grey's, csi, etc)?

Well, you've convinced ME. Out of 23 radio stations in my market, I now agree that 4 will survive.

survive WHAT? where is it written that U are supposed to like more than 3-4 stations? why is it the responsibility of 23 stations to all satisfy U? we keep hearing the creepy radio death knell but it mostly sounds like pissy fits.

The aearlier question about the 4 main TV networks: they all survived. in fact, latest ratings show the fall season up 2% over last fall--astounding when there are many more choices, not just 500 cable channels but netflix, iPods, etc.
 
19 out of 23 stations in any market aren't going silent tommorrow because everyone demands that radio stations be their own personal iPod. Without consolodation, and the dreaded operating efficiencies it provides, some of them might have gone silent some time ago. Its interesting that a Columbus cluster was just bought by a relative mom-and-pop operator who has slashed and burned staff at the few other stations he owns..and I thought guys like him were supposed to "only be in it for the love of radio".
 
radiofriend1 said:
i never said radio is perfect. but i also refuse to put terrestrial radio on a death watch cuz a handful of bitter sour people who couldn't make it in the biz are carping about how all radio sucks and is not worth listening to
"cuz a handful of bitter sour people who couldn't make it in the biz"

Huh? Are you saying that the detractors of today's terrestrial radio are only in this category of wannabees?? Some here are just fans and some here do business with radio stations but don't work for them. I'm in both categories, but not in the wannabee category.
 
SuperRadioFan said:
radiofriend1 said:
i never said radio is perfect. but i also refuse to put terrestrial radio on a death watch cuz a handful of bitter sour people who couldn't make it in the biz are carping about how all radio sucks and is not worth listening to
"cuz a handful of bitter sour people who couldn't make it in the biz"

Huh? Are you saying that the detractors of today's terrestrial radio are only in this category of wannabees?? Some here are just fans and some here do business with radio stations but don't work for them. I'm in both categories, but not in the wannabee category.

not what I said. my words were "many of".
 
radiofriend1 said:
Anyacat said:
People are listening to less radio because they have alternatives that do not suck as much as radio now sucks. I hope that answer is simple enough.

i never said radio is perfect. but i also refuse to put terrestrial radio on a death watch cuz a handful of bitter sour people who couldn't make it in the biz are carping about how all radio sucks and is not worth listening to

U don't like? then PLEASE go to something else----that is the wonderful thing about living in america, lotsa choices

ps- i note with interested you refused to answer my question

correct answer is: YES, network tv is doing pretty well. ain't perfect but nothing is. and i distinctly remember in the early and mid eighties all the pronouncements that network tv would be pretty much toast by the mid 90's because off all the choices cable tv would offer

choices are GOOD. radio can't go back to pre-consolidation (because time cannot be reversed) so plz deal with the real world of radio in the 2000's

There is no choice on the radio, that seems to be the issue and the problem, and, as you correctly noted, it won't change, so yes, that is, as far as I am concerned, the death of terrestrial radio, just as cable was the death of network TV. If you do not provide people with adequate choices, they will go elsewhere. I believe we agree on that. I've tried to make two points: The first being that the generation you so cooly dismiss is the last generation to grow up listening to radio, for whom radio meant something, so the demise of radio is a great sadness; the new generation of listeners have always had other choices, of which radio is only one choice. Instead of becoming more interesting, corporate radio becomes more of the same, with less local coverage (while petitioning the FCC for greater ownership, claiming that this will somehow make them more effective in times of crisis). Voice tracking means less overhead more revenue and so for some this is a good thing. But radio is doing exactly what network TV did when cable showed up, instead of getting better, it simply devalues itself in the search of greater profits. And yes, when all else fails, no-friend-of-radio falls back on the same tiresome cant, it's not radio that is bad it is the critic who is a sour wannabee, instead of a disgruntled customer--which is what people are when they turn away from radio.
 
I don't mean to be nitpicky here, but you did not use the words "many of" (see your origianl post that I quoted from). Your implication referred to a cause and effect-- "cuz a handful of bitter sour people" etc
 
Anya, can't fight City Hall.... I'm sure you know there's many choices for us (Oldies Fans) beyond terrestrial radio. And while it lasts check out the HD page of Clear Channel

http://www.clearchannelmusic.com/hdradio/

There are a few fgood oldies stations on there.... My favorite is Tulsa KQLL, also WBIG in Washington is pretty good, and for a higher quality stream but few if any 50s there Sacramento's KGBY. They sound like radio without commercials. As for portability (until webstreams become mobile) I suggest getting a recording device to record streams on your computer and then burning that on a CD which you can play in your car.
 
SuperRadioFan said:
I don't mean to be nitpicky here, but you did not use the words "many of" (see your origianl post that I quoted from). Your implication referred to a cause and effect-- "cuz a handful of bitter sour people" etc

a handful, some, many. a handful of sour people can spread their negativity to others and it spreads like wildfire

and i stand by my premise that most people who sit here & piss and moan the loudest about radio sucking are NOT PEOPLE who are working hard, smart and doing successful, entertaining radio today.
 
SuperRadioFan said:
Anya, can't fight City Hall.... I'm sure you know there's many choices for us (Oldies Fans) beyond terrestrial radio. And while it lasts check out the HD page of Clear Channel

http://www.clearchannelmusic.com/hdradio/

There are a few fgood oldies stations on there.... My favorite is Tulsa KQLL, also WBIG in Washington is pretty good, and for a higher quality stream but few if any 50s there Sacramento's KGBY. They sound like radio without commercials. As for portability (until webstreams become mobile) I suggest getting a recording device to record streams on your computer and then burning that on a CD which you can play in your car.

Well, yes, there are choices and no, I will never, under any circumstances having anything to do with a Clear Channel station if I can help it--and I can, I can. I alternate between two online sources:
http://www.oldies1160.com
http://www.club977.com/tunein/oldies128.asx

But it makes me mad that corporate radio cannot figure out that what they have done results in a loss of listeners as well as the development of new technologies will always draw people away from the old.

Of course, one cannot fight city hall, but one can sure as hell stop Clear Channel from further expansion. They aren't the only ones, but they have more marbles than anybody else and they are responsible for the miserable state of terrestrial radio. And, of course, now they want more. If you'd like to comment on this to the FCC, there's some information and links at www.realoldiesfans.com

AND, I do love the idea that complaints and dissatisfaction can be so easily dismissed as the yammerings of a handful of sour people who are neither smart, nor successful nor entertaining.
 
Yes, you can complain to the FCC about format changes..except that the FCC does not regulate formats, and if it did, you coudl guarantee that no one would take a chance on a format again if they knew that if it failed, they'd be stuck with it. Of course, in the case of the Real Oldies page, CC doesn't get any credit for putting the format on in the first place, but how dare they ever change it (you'd think that no radio station ever changed format before 1996).

I'll say it agin..there was less, not more format choice in the pre-consolodation world. Sometimes six A/C or beautiful Music stations in a market.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom