• 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 why stations should kill oldies

AZJoe said:
Ford lost alot last year too, but has turned it around this year, same thing with XM & Sirius, THIS year, they are cutting losses and showing positive cash flow. You go on and be just like the the NAB, claiming sat radio isnt competition, yet at every turn they are condemming it and fighting it, wishing for its demise. Can everyone guess why? I stand by my facts. Have a nice day!! :)

Ford has made money for most of the lat 80 years... satellite has never made money. Horrible comparison.

Neither will show a profit for a long time. The "positive numbers" are EBITDA numbers, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. How much do you think they loose after paying interest on all the debt, depreciating the $500 milion satellites, paying taxes, etc? If you think having positive cash flow for companies so deeply in debt iss any indication of success, you need to do Business 101 at least.

The NAB has opposed the merger because the two companies are trying to do something they were not chartered to do, which is create a monopoly in a sector.
 
I've gotta agree with DE, I believe AZ's off base with this. Satcasters are in deep as Enron. Their "cash flow" is as Dave stated. They're bleeding out. Even IF 100% of those hundreds of thousands of value added "free"subscriptions on new vehicles were converted to payers, it would not be enough. Too much turnover.

The NAB is doing it's job, as it should. Besides the monopoly merger, the NAB has been persuing the FCC to prevent translators in "holes". I say T.S. Every station has lapses in coverage. It is what it is. The difference here is the Satcasters have been using the translators for local WX and Traffic, somehting they also promised they had no interest in ever doing when they were chartered.
 
amfmsw said:
I've gotta agree with DE, I believe AZ's off base with this. Satcasters are in deep as Enron. Their "cash flow" is as Dave stated. They're bleeding out. Even IF 100% of those hundreds of thousands of value added "free"subscriptions on new vehicles were converted to payers, it would not be enough. Too much turnover.

The NAB is doing it's job, as it should. Besides the monopoly merger, the NAB has been persuing the FCC to prevent translators in "holes". I say T.S. Every station has lapses in coverage. It is what it is. The difference here is the Satcasters have been using the translators for local WX and Traffic, somehting they also promised they had no interest in ever doing when they were chartered.

You're right AMFMSW. If they were doing dandy, nobody would ever have mention the 'M' word (merger). Satellite radio will never be the end of terrestrial radio- just like cable TV, it's simply another alternative.
 
I always remember the quote from then 4th District Congressman, Mike Oxley, (who was on the House Telecommunications Committee). He said, and I quote,

"Consolidation is needed on a grand scale as the radio industry is dying. Stations are going bankrupt, and the public is suffering from their loss. Without consolidation, radio would cease to exist."

<collective deep sigh>

I agree that the more owners there are in the game, the more the chances are for failure, but is that not the case with any business?

If I want to own a hamburger stand across from McDonalds, it's my business risk. It's also my responsibility to do things that attract people away from McDonalds and provide a fresh product to get them on my side of the street. If I don't do it right, then I deserve to fail.

I think radio is the same way. If you have the population, and a format that they will listen to, depending on how well you put together your platter of hits and garnishes of announcers, etc, you CAN do real well.

You can also do real bad an loose your shirt if the content is unappealing as cold fries and a watery drink with a Happy Meal.

I think government dealt radio, and the public, a disservice. As I look back at all the stations I had the opportunity to listen to in my forty years in the business, there were a lot of little moms and pops with great Oldies (and other) formats, making money, and providing fantastic services to the listener and their community.

/Rant_off
 
And compare that to the "wonderful" job terrestrial and the big corps are doing now on the public airwaves!! GAG!!!!!!!!! ::)
 
Oldies Cat said:
Satellite radio will never be the end of terrestrial radio- just like cable TV, it's simply another alternative.

But it could very well be the end of terrestrial MUSIC radio. And how many talk stations can any given market support?
 
TheFonz said:
Oldies Cat said:
Satellite radio will never be the end of terrestrial radio- just like cable TV, it's simply another alternative.

But it could very well be the end of terrestrial MUSIC radio. And how many talk stations can any given market support?

RIGHT!!! Just like Cable was going to be the end of the TV networks- 30+ years ago. You're dreaming.
 
Since it's inception, radio was supposed to be "killed" by:

Television...(didn't happen)

Cable radio...(what the heck was that anyway?)

8 tracks...(yikes!)

Cassette Tapes...(puhleeze!)

Satellite Radio...(a more expensive version of Music Choice, and just about as successful!)

etc...etc...etc. (put computers, i-Pods, and internet radio in this catagory. Though, I will suggest that internet radio is allowing for the exposure of "niche" formats which are too small for radio to exploit, and that could be a good thing for music lovers and consumers.)

Terrestrial radio has proven over the years to be a very adaptable medium. Whatever the future holds, I expect radio will adapt again. I don't believe musicradio will die, though the presentation of it we know today
certainly could change. And talkradio will likely continue to move onto FM and go more directions that it does at present.

At the end of the day what will keep radio from becoming obsolete: stations serving their local audiences.
And yes, despite the downsides of consolidation (mentioned ad nauseaum on this and other boards) this will happen. Not with "live/local DJ's playing requests from listeners at 3 AM." (Though I don't expect local DJ's to ever completely go away.) It will be local information-based programming that will see the day. But exactly how all this will shake out is anyone's guess at this point.

Just my thoughts here.
 
Terrestrial radio isnt going to get killed off, there is always a demand for cheap entertainment, and cheap products for the masses . Look how many VW Bugs were sold compared to Jaguars!! Ford Escorts sold a million, but only a few thousand Bentlys got sold- but which is better? Quality I take over quantity anyday, but many do not care and wont pay for it- so be it. There are 300 million possible customers out there, by far more than enough for the paying audience- it is never expected to equal what you get for free- and so what?
 
For the consumer, there's a lot more choice with consolidation, that is, different niches. It used to be common for a market to have, for example, 4 or 5 ACs with little differentiation. It's more targetted now, which should lead to more P-1s and longer TSL.
 
Oldies Cat said:
TheFonz said:
Oldies Cat said:
Satellite radio will never be the end of terrestrial radio- just like cable TV, it's simply another alternative.

But it could very well be the end of terrestrial MUSIC radio. And how many talk stations can any given market support?



RIGHT!!! Just like Cable was going to be the end of the TV networks- 30+ years ago. You're dreaming.


Like I said, the [talk] radio networks might survive.
 
TheFonz said:
Oldies Cat said:
TheFonz said:
Oldies Cat said:
Satellite radio will never be the end of terrestrial radio- just like cable TV, it's simply another alternative.

But it could very well be the end of terrestrial MUSIC radio. And how many talk stations can any given market support?



RIGHT!!! Just like Cable was going to be the end of the TV networks- 30+ years ago. You're dreaming.


Like I said, the [talk] radio networks might survive.

Boy, that's the kind of positive vision we need in radio. ::)
 
DavidEduardo said:
As I have explained before, advertisers look for return on investment for advertising. If it costs more to create a sale than the profit on the sale, then particular groups are not targeted. Older consumers have money, but it taks more advertising to sway them than some other groups... so there is essentially no agency.driven advertising on radio for 55+.

And, in most markets, oldies is used by only about 10% of 55+ listeners at any given time. Much bigger is news, talk, sports, AC, country (in much of the US), classic rock and certain ethnic formats.

Odd that it's a "radio only" trend. Advertising on televison has a heavy emphasis on baby boomer targeted advertising!! In fact, it is the fastest growing demo in terms of "new" tv advertising. Why doesn't radio have its share of prescription drug advertisers, financial planning advertisers, insurance advertisers? It certainly isn't the case of the demo not being valuable....its about radio not finding an adequate way to serve the demo.
 
BACKnUSSR said:
DavidEduardo said:
As I have explained before, advertisers look for return on investment for advertising. If it costs more to create a sale than the profit on the sale, then particular groups are not targeted. Older consumers have money, but it taks more advertising to sway them than some other groups... so there is essentially no agency.driven advertising on radio for 55+.

And, in most markets, oldies is used by only about 10% of 55+ listeners at any given time. Much bigger is news, talk, sports, AC, country (in much of the US), classic rock and certain ethnic formats.

Odd that it's a "radio only" trend. Advertising on televison has a heavy emphasis on baby boomer targeted advertising!! In fact, it is the fastest growing demo in terms of "new" tv advertising. Why doesn't radio have its share of prescription drug advertisers, financial planning advertisers, insurance advertisers? It certainly isn't the case of the demo not being valuable....its about radio not finding an adequate way to serve the demo.

The demo is valuable. It's just that advertisers just aren't using radio to target 50+ consumers.
 
Oldies Cat said:
BACKnUSSR said:
DavidEduardo said:
As I have explained before, advertisers look for return on investment for advertising. If it costs more to create a sale than the profit on the sale, then particular groups are not targeted. Older consumers have money, but it taks more advertising to sway them than some other groups... so there is essentially no agency.driven advertising on radio for 55+.

And, in most markets, oldies is used by only about 10% of 55+ listeners at any given time. Much bigger is news, talk, sports, AC, country (in much of the US), classic rock and certain ethnic formats.

Odd that it's a "radio only" trend. Advertising on televison has a heavy emphasis on baby boomer targeted advertising!! In fact, it is the fastest growing demo in terms of "new" tv advertising. Why doesn't radio have its share of prescription drug advertisers, financial planning advertisers, insurance advertisers? It certainly isn't the case of the demo not being valuable....its about radio not finding an adequate way to serve the demo.

The demo is valuable. It's just that advertisers just aren't using radio to target 50+ consumers.

Roger that! The question I'm posing is why not? One particular poster's assertion (over and over again) that advertisers don't find the demo valuable is wrong...because those SAME advertisers (and agencies) chase the demo in other forms of media. There problem isnt with 50+....it is with radio advertising....So why is it that they don't believe RADIO can deliver that demo??
 
BACKnUSSR said:
Oldies Cat said:
BACKnUSSR said:
DavidEduardo said:
As I have explained before, advertisers look for return on investment for advertising. If it costs more to create a sale than the profit on the sale, then particular groups are not targeted. Older consumers have money, but it taks more advertising to sway them than some other groups... so there is essentially no agency.driven advertising on radio for 55+.

And, in most markets, oldies is used by only about 10% of 55+ listeners at any given time. Much bigger is news, talk, sports, AC, country (in much of the US), classic rock and certain ethnic formats.

Because there are many other 55+ targeted stations (mainly country and N/T) that are more efficient at it. Look, as much-loved as the Oldies format is on these boards and a certain segment of the population, Oldies stations were almost never THE dominant choice in most markets- they got their share of good ratings but it's been rare that Oldies outperformed everybody else, let's say 35+, even 50+.

And, part of the problem is Oldies came on in the late 80s as basically a late 50s-to-early 70s music format and stayed that way for nearly 20 years without evolution. Several years ago, when it was obvious most hung on too long to the original premise and discovered most of their audience had aged past 55, it was too late to catch up.

In the end, it is the decision of ADVERTISERS (we're not talking mom & pop shops and mostly direct sales, I'm referring to major dollar accounts) how to use media. And, they simply do not use radio to target 55+. Even in television, the network with the "oldest" perception and audience, CBS, has spent the past number of years infusing younger-targeted programming into their lineups to avoid having an audience that's too old for most major advertisers, which is how you generate revenue and stay in business.



Odd that it's a "radio only" trend. Advertising on televison has a heavy emphasis on baby boomer targeted advertising!! In fact, it is the fastest growing demo in terms of "new" tv advertising. Why doesn't radio have its share of prescription drug advertisers, financial planning advertisers, insurance advertisers? It certainly isn't the case of the demo not being valuable....its about radio not finding an adequate way to serve the demo.

The demo is valuable. It's just that advertisers just aren't using radio to target 50+ consumers.

Roger that! The question I'm posing is why not? One particular poster's assertion (over and over again) that advertisers don't find the demo valuable is wrong...because those SAME advertisers (and agencies) chase the demo in other forms of media. There problem isnt with 50+....it is with radio advertising....So why is it that they don't believe RADIO can deliver that demo??
 
BACKnUSSR said:
Roger that! The question I'm posing is why not? One particular poster's assertion (over and over again) that advertisers don't find the demo valuable is wrong...because those SAME advertisers (and agencies) chase the demo in other forms of media. There problem isnt with 50+....it is with radio advertising....So why is it that they don't believe RADIO can deliver that demo??

There are very few 55+ specific campaigns, and nearly all of those fall into categories like dental adhesive, extended care health insurance, investment insurance and medications.

If you look at three of the categories, most of these advertisers use print because legal requirements force them into lengthy disclaimers and lists of conditions. And others, like dental adhesive, have been shown to work better with visuals as ease of use is important in that category.

Take a look at the AARP magazine, and you will see that nearly all ads fit in the categories mentioned above. Direct mail, targeted TV and print are the best ways to convey advertising that requires either "appetite appeal" (product demos) or lengthy copy or disclaimers.

The fact is that while 25-54 was the most common demo, it is now becoming 18-49 as more and more advertisers find that the best retrun on investment opportunities for radio lie in those demos where consumption habits are created.

There are thousands of campaigns that do not use radio for any age and much of that has to do with visual needs and the fact that agencies don't make much money on radio creative... which is why some of it is so bad compared to the TV or print or web creative.
 
It looks like radio lost a fair chunk of change by having 25-54 the preferred demo at a time when 18-49 would have delivered more bodies capable of being influenced. Just imagine, it could have been even grander for us than it was!
 
Oldies Cat said:
Roger that! The question I'm posing is why not? One particular poster's assertion (over and over again) that advertisers don't find the demo valuable is wrong...because those SAME advertisers (and agencies) chase the demo in other forms of media. There problem isnt with 50+....it is with radio advertising....So why is it that they don't believe RADIO can deliver that demo??


Probably because radio didn't get the advertising for this demo back when it was 30+. Newspapers did. And newspapers still do. It's probably the only demo that newspapers have left.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom