This is why stations should kill oldies

[davideduardo]

CBS-FM had lots, and threw them away like yesterdays' newspaper. And please don't tell PBS that.

But the majority were in 55+, not a sales demo. Sales were off over 20% in 7 years, while the market was up 15%.

Today, as classic hits, they are "twice as high" in the rankers as they were as oldies.

 

[amfmsw]

They're not doing much differently now than some 15-20 years ago. I have unscoped airchecks of them then playing Madonna "True Blue", Donna Summer "Dim All The Lights", LP Version of "All Right Now" Free from 1990. Classic Hits, Oldies whatever you want to call it this week. I call it good music.

 

[lilburncommunityradio]

If an advertiser wants to reach my wife or I, they better be buying time on oldies stations.

Next year, nearly no advertiser who uses radio will want to reach you.

The above statement was sincere , although stupid as the day is long.. Oldies has a place. Ignorance is sure bliss... THAT IS, when your not into the format, that is being spoken of.

 

[davideduardo]

The above statement was sincere , although stupid as the day is long.. Oldies has a place. Ignorance is sure bliss... THAT IS, when your not into the format, that is being spoken of.

First, in the rated markets, there are no agency buys for 55+, whatever you say.

Second, the average share for oldies in 55+ is less than 10% of all listening in that demo, or in 55-64 as well. So advertisers could reach most 55+ without buying oldies anyway.

I am definitely "into" the format, since I develoéd and work with 12 classic hits stations which moved away from oldies to classic hits over the years. The list of stations includes 4 of the top 10 US markets, too.

 

[TheFonz]

Next year, nearly no advertiser who uses radio will want to reach you.

And this should NEVER be a problem for anyone who enjoys radio as a source for their music. Satellite radio is so much better at programming music for ALL ages. Anyone who can't justify the subscription cost of satellite isn't really a fan of music radio.

 

[davideduardo]

Next year, nearly no advertiser who uses radio will want to reach you.

And this should NEVER be a problem for anyone who enjoys radio as a source for their music. Satellite radio is so much better at programming music for ALL ages. Anyone who can't justify the subscription cost of satellite isn't really a fan of music radio.

Or, given that the cost is over $150 a year, it is someone who works for a living and has kids, a family, bills and other stuff that make paying for satellite an unnecessary luxury... that is why half the buyers of preinstalled cars do not subscribe and why the annual churn rate is 18%.

Saying sombody who can not justify spending $150 a month on satellite, generally only for the car, is not a real music fan is like saying sombody who does not go to home games is not a sports fan. That's a simplistic, and in many ways, offensive commentary.

 

[firepoint525]

Or, given that the cost is over $150 a year, it is someone who works for a living and has kids, a family, bills and other stuff that make paying for satellite an unnecessary luxury... that is why half the buyers of preinstalled cars do not subscribe and why the annual churn rate is 18%.

Saying sombody who can not justify spending $150 a month on satellite, generally only for the car, is not a real music fan is like saying sombody who does not go to home games is not a sports fan. That's a simplistic, and in many ways, offensive commentary.

Is it $150 a year, or $150 a month? $150 a year comes to a little over $12 a month.

 

[davideduardo]

Saying sombody who can not justify spending $150 a month on satellite, generally only for the car, is not a real music fan is like saying sombody who does not go to home games is not a sports fan. That's a simplistic, and in many ways, offensive commentary.

Is it $150 a year, or $150 a month? $150 a year comes to a little over $12 a month.

It's about $13 a month... when you have a tught budget, that is a discretionary item many choose not to spend, particularly since most XM installs are fixed in the car, where most of radio listening does NOT take place.

 

[Julius Leonard Marx]

Saying sombody who can not justify spending $150 a month on satellite, generally only for the car, is not a real music fan is like saying sombody who does not go to home games is not a sports fan. That's a simplistic, and in many ways, offensive commentary.

Is it $150 a year, or $150 a month? $150 a year comes to a little over $12 a month.

It's about $13 a month... when you have a tught budget, that is a discretionary item many choose not to spend, particularly since most XM installs are fixed in the car, where most of radio listening does NOT take place.

I know retirees often do have to watch expenses. Still when people on this board say they can't afford it, I wonder. If somebody is here, they probably have Internet access which generally costs $15 or more a month. And cable or satellite TV (even more than that)? Newspaper or magazine subscriptions? It's a matter of chosing what's worth it. If people chose not to use discretionary funds for something other than satellite radio, why are they complaining how they can't afford it? Truth is they chose to spend for something else.

And why are people complaining about no oldies when there are lots of ways to hear oldies. Cable/satellite TV music channels. Internet radio. XM's 50s, 60s and 70s decades channels (among others) are streamed free online. Live365, Yahoo! Radio and other music sites also have free oldies any time you want them. So what's the problem? Don't tell me you can't hear oldies. I know you can.

 

[TheFonz]

Saying sombody who can not justify spending $13 a month on satellite, generally only for the car, is not a real music fan is like saying sombody who does not go to home games is not a sports fan. That's a simplistic, and in many ways, offensive commentary.

I said music RADIO fan. And that is a fact. Just like " Next year, nearly no advertiser who uses radio will want to reach you" is a fact.

 

[davideduardo]

Saying sombody who can not justify spending $13 a month on satellite, generally only for the car, is not a real music fan is like saying sombody who does not go to home games is not a sports fan. That's a simplistic, and in many ways, offensive commentary.

I said music RADIO fan. And that is a fact. Just like " Next year, nearly no advertiser who uses radio will want to reach you" is a fact.

That's cool, except "radio" does not have fans. The entertainment on the radio has fans. It's not about towers and transmitters, it is about the content. Radio, in time, will use the best distribution channels available... but listeners will not care about that... they will care for the stations or streams and what they bring.

 

[w9wi]

If an advertiser wants to reach my wife or I, they better be buying time on oldies stations.

Next year, nearly no advertiser who uses radio will want to reach you.

Semi-dumb question:

If advertisers have little interest in reaching 55+ audiences on radio (and obviously they don't), why are they buying television left & right?

 

[davideduardo]

Semi-dumb question:

If advertisers have little interest in reaching 55+ audiences on radio (and obviously they don't), why are they buying television left & right?

TV has visual (may things, like retirement homes, need appetite appeal) and can scroll legal and disclaimer text (that is why no Viagra on radio). In addition, there are lifestyle environment shows that target a specific older consumer group. Remember, the average large market in the US has maybe 20 to 25 viable radio stations, while basic cable may have four times that number of options, so the costs and specificity of cable nets are very good deals for a niche market.

Since nearly every senior targeted account relies on either extensive copy and disclaimers or needs pictures, radio is not used. Look at the ads in the AARP magazine... tons of text, tables, pictures, disclaimers, legal notices.

 

[amfmsw]

Apples and Oranges, Dave. Different Federal Rules apply. A printed Pharmaceutical ad in a magazine has an equal sized legaleze on the back page. Broadcast is not required to air it all.

 

[TheFonz]

Saying sombody who can not justify spending $13 a month on satellite, generally only for the car, is not a real music fan is like saying sombody who does not go to home games is not a sports fan. That's a simplistic, and in many ways, offensive commentary.

I said music RADIO fan. And that is a fact. Just like " Next year, nearly no advertiser who uses radio will want to reach you" is a fact.

That's cool, except "radio" does not have fans. The entertainment on the radio has fans. It's not about towers and transmitters, it is about the content. Radio, in time, will use the best distribution channels available... but listeners will not care about that... they will care for the stations or streams and what they bring.

A radio fan would be someone who prefers to hear his or her music through the medium of radio, rather than from records, tapes, CDs, mp3s, the internet or a juke box. Judging from the posts on this board, there are still a few of those types out there. Since they love radio, those who have been dumped by commercial radio because advertisers don't want them (and even those who haven't) should seriously consider budgeting $13 a month for satellite. It's radio at its best, and without commercials.

 

[firepoint525]

I know retirees often do have to watch expenses. Still when people on this board say they can't afford it, I wonder. If somebody is here, they probably have Internet access which generally costs $15 or more a month. And cable or satellite TV (even more than that)? Newspaper or magazine subscriptions? It's a matter of chosing what's worth it. If people chose not to use discretionary funds for something other than satellite radio, why are they complaining how they can't afford it? Truth is they chose to spend for something else.

Good points, all of them. But for some folks, it might feel like "piling on," like being nickel and dimed to death. But for almost everyone, it's a matter of priorities. What you can afford versus what you cannot. For me, when I moved into my first house (after years of apartment living), I gave up cable TV. I have never had any newspaper or magazine subscriptions for very long. And right now, I am underemployed, after being let go from my last station three months ago. Once I achieve full employment again, I will strongly consider satellite radio. But for right now, it is a luxury that I cannot afford. I have kept my high-speed internet (couldn't stand dial up!), but it now costs slightly more than it would if I had kept it as part of my package deal with cable TV which I gave up. If I were to sign up for satellite radio, I would probably have to give up something else to offset the cost.

The way I see it, people now pay for reruns of what they could once see on free TV, so I suppose it's no different that people will now need to pay for what they used to be able to hear for free over terrestrial radio.

 

[Julius Leonard Marx]

Good points, all of them. But for some folks, it might feel like "piling on," like being nickel and dimed to death. But for almost everyone, it's a matter of priorities. What you can afford versus what you cannot. For me, when I moved into my first house (after years of apartment living), I gave up cable TV. I have never had any newspaper or magazine subscriptions for very long. And right now, I am underemployed, after being let go from my last station three months ago. Once I achieve full employment again, I will strongly consider satellite radio. But for right now, it is a luxury that I cannot afford. I have kept my high-speed internet (couldn't stand dial up!), but it now costs slightly more than it would if I had kept it as part of my package deal with cable TV which I gave up. If I were to sign up for satellite radio, I would probably have to give up something else to offset the cost.

The way I see it, people now pay for reruns of what they could once see on free TV, so I suppose it's no different that people will now need to pay for what they used to be able to hear for free over terrestrial radio.

Dear Fire:

Makes sense to me. I still wonder why people who did opt for Internet access (otherwise how did they get hear) are complaining about no oldies or no standards on wireless, terrestrial radio? The music is right here online for no additional cost. They probably can even listen to the same "format service" their former oldies or standards station used to carry. So, what's the problem? Why complain?

I suspect people do get set in their ways at some point. Maybe the advertisers who say people of a certain age are less likely to try a different brand or a new product do have a point. A lot of people seem unwilling to get the music they like from another source.

 

[BACKnUSSR]

Good points, all of them. But for some folks, it might feel like "piling on," like being nickel and dimed to death. But for almost everyone, it's a matter of priorities. What you can afford versus what you cannot. For me, when I moved into my first house (after years of apartment living), I gave up cable TV. I have never had any newspaper or magazine subscriptions for very long. And right now, I am underemployed, after being let go from my last station three months ago. Once I achieve full employment again, I will strongly consider satellite radio. But for right now, it is a luxury that I cannot afford. I have kept my high-speed internet (couldn't stand dial up!), but it now costs slightly more than it would if I had kept it as part of my package deal with cable TV which I gave up. If I were to sign up for satellite radio, I would probably have to give up something else to offset the cost.

The way I see it, people now pay for reruns of what they could once see on free TV, so I suppose it's no different that people will now need to pay for what they used to be able to hear for free over terrestrial radio.

Dear Fire:

Makes sense to me. I still wonder why people who did opt for Internet access (otherwise how did they get hear) are complaining about no oldies or no standards on wireless, terrestrial radio? The music is right here online for no additional cost. They probably can even listen to the same "format service" their former oldies or standards station used to carry. So, what's the problem? Why complain?

I suspect people do get set in their ways at some point. Maybe the advertisers who say people of a certain age are less likely to try a different brand or a new product do have a point. A lot of people seem unwilling to get the music they like from another source.

Its not all about music. Its about station personality. Two TOP 40's might compete against each other, play the same songs and one does much better than the other. Satellite stations that are music intensive will never outdraw terrestrial stations in the cities they're in, and neither will song after song after song internet programming. The "jukebox" way of programming has never worked. Many JACK listeners will tell you that an important part of their enjoyment of the station is the Howard Cogan imaging. It seems that a lot of the internet services and satellite are trying so hard to be unique, that they are dropping the "good" things about radio with the bad.

 

[TheFonz]

The way I see it, people now pay for reruns of what they could once see on free TV, so I suppose it's no different that people will now need to pay for what they used to be able to hear for free over terrestrial radio.

Good point. Some of the best selling DVDs are packages of old TV shows that we watched (and in some cases, can still watch) for free.

 

[AZJoe]

Good points, all of them. But for some folks, it might feel like "piling on," like being nickel and dimed to death. But for almost everyone, it's a matter of priorities. What you can afford versus what you cannot. For me, when I moved into my first house (after years of apartment living), I gave up cable TV. I have never had any newspaper or magazine subscriptions for very long. And right now, I am underemployed, after being let go from my last station three months ago. Once I achieve full employment again, I will strongly consider satellite radio. But for right now, it is a luxury that I cannot afford. I have kept my high-speed internet (couldn't stand dial up!), but it now costs slightly more than it would if I had kept it as part of my package deal with cable TV which I gave up. If I were to sign up for satellite radio, I would probably have to give up something else to offset the cost.

The way I see it, people now pay for reruns of what they could once see on free TV, so I suppose it's no different that people will now need to pay for what they used to be able to hear for free over terrestrial radio.

Dear Fire:

Makes sense to me. I still wonder why people who did opt for Internet access (otherwise how did they get hear) are complaining about no oldies or no standards on wireless, terrestrial radio? The music is right here online for no additional cost. They probably can even listen to the same "format service" their former oldies or standards station used to carry. So, what's the problem? Why complain?

I suspect people do get set in their ways at some point. Maybe the advertisers who say people of a certain age are less likely to try a different brand or a new product do have a point. A lot of people seem unwilling to get the music they like from another source.

Its not all about music. Its about station personality. Two TOP 40's might compete against each other, play the same songs and one does much better than the other. Satellite stations that are music intensive will never outdraw terrestrial stations in the cities they're in, and neither will song after song after song internet programming. The "jukebox" way of programming has never worked. Many JACK listeners will tell you that an important part of their enjoyment of the station is the Howard Cogan imaging. It seems that a lot of the internet services and satellite are trying so hard to be unique, that they are dropping the "good" things about radio with the bad.

Sat radio, Xm and Sirius are not music jukeboxes, their oldies channels are hosted by great jocks with personality and many are standouts in their field. What sat radio doesnt offer is COMMERCIALS, and people dont listen to radio for ads, they listen for the music and the personalities- which XM & Sirius have, better than terrestrial. 8)