• 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

Too many commercials!

Status
Not open for further replies.


I wasn't aware there were more than simple opinions but as far as "facts" go, I would always be suspicious when "facts" came from industry sources. You go ahead and believe what you want and I will do the same. It's still a free country - for a few more years anyway.

Within any niche industry, what other sources of facts would there be except the industry, its trade associations and its suppliers?

While there may be loads of "outside" information on automobile safety or drugs and medications and other "newsworthy" fields, there is no incentive for outsiders to research radio without someone to pay the cost of that research.

So what we have are audience measurements provided by an international company that does all forms of consumer and business research all over the world, Nielsen. The advertising industry uses that data, but has its watchdog, the MRC, to verify the procedures radio, TV and new media. We have research companies that do the specialized research stations use to determine formats, morning show performance and music playlists; they don't publish their findings as they are proprietary. We have trade groups that defend and promote the industry, but for the most part they don't do research... they compile data that shows radio's impact (NAB) or effectiveness (RAB).

The only somewhat broad view we have is from a few market analysts who study the publicly traded companies on behalf of the investment portfolios their company manages. But that sort of analysis is not really focused on how the sausage is made... just on how much it can be sold for when finished.

So, the only information you are going to get from radio comes from radio. Your complaint is unrealistic and disingenuous.
 


Excuse me! I was not aware we had to have "credentials" to voice opinions on this forum. My mistake. You "experts" on a dying industry go right ahead and don't mind me.

The problem is that you consider your "opinions" to be valid criticism or commentary.

In another thread you commented about an AM station in San Antonio that was doing a true old "oldies" show all Sunday afternoon. You said that was a poor option because people in that demo were all going to be watching NFL games on Sunday.

Because you are not an industry veteran, you did not know that the station is the traditional "old-fashioned" Tejano station in the market appealing to that very special subset of Hispanics known as "Tejanos" (So special that many Tejanos resent being called "Hispanic"... there is even a T-shirt saying that!). And you did not know that several other Tejano music stations have had great success with oldies shows on Sundays, irrespective of the NFL, the NHL, the NBA, baseball, polo and volleyball broadcasts. And probably you did not know that the station already was mostly a 55+ proposition, so playing old conjunto music or old pop music mattered not a whit in competing with American rules football games. But most important, you did not take into account that Hispanics, as a group, very much under-index in their interest in US football.

This unrelated post is detailed because it shows your tendency to do a ready-fire-aim attack on a medium you do not use, generally either oblivious to the facts or based on anecdotal evidence from "people you know".

An example of that was your counter to the statement that Smooth Jazz died due to an aged, senior audience where you said that your young daughter loved smooth jazz. One person = anecdotal. Ratings in dozens and dozens of markets = reality.

And your case is not enhance when you put "quotes" around the word "experts". A number of true industry experts have refuted your unsubstantiated beliefs and opinions... people like BigA and KM Richards. And folks like b-turner, who may have given you the most credible insights of all as he has experienced local market radio from the trenches while being on the air, a seller and a manager. There are a wide variety of people of experience who have tried to show you that, although you can listen to whatever you want, your opinions are not in tune with the business and programming reality of radio, but you have not listened.
 
Within any niche industry, what other sources of facts would there be except the industry, its trade associations and its suppliers?

You make a good point except it doesn't address the issue. For instance, the print media also publish circulation numbers but the numbers don't come from businesses directly associated with the newspapers and magazines. Again, I am not saying the numbers are inaccurate or skewed by the business relationship but it does lend a certain suspicion.

While there may be loads of "outside" information on automobile safety or drugs and medications and other "newsworthy" fields, there is no incentive for outsiders to research radio without someone to pay the cost of that research.

I wasn't going to mention the drug industry but since you brought it up - a somewhat similar situation exists. Look carefully at the various claims made by specific drugs and/or medical products and you will find that most often there is some sort of survey touting the benefits which was commissioned by the manufacturer. Again, this does not prove collusion or misinformation but an arm's length separation would be better.

We have trade groups that defend and promote the industry, but for the most part they don't do research... they compile data that shows radio's impact (NAB) or effectiveness (RAB).

And how do you measure "effectiveness"? All I'm saying is the only way to measure the benefit of any advertising, radio or otherwise, is the impact on sales or brand. Every other method is just fuzzy math.
 
The problem is that you consider your "opinions" to be valid criticism or commentary.

Of course I do. Who doesn't? And if you didn't why bother typing them up?

In another thread you commented about an AM station in San Antonio that was doing a true old "oldies" show all Sunday afternoon. You said that was a poor option because people in that demo were all going to be watching NFL games on Sunday.

Yes, you got me on that one. I am not familiar with the Tejano culture and tend to blend them into the larger Latino population. I don't, after all, live in Tejas.

But most important, you did not take into account that Hispanics, as a group, very much under-index in their interest in US football.

Next time you are in Phoenix give a look at the crowd inside Cardinal Stadium during a game. Plenty of Hispanic faces. I've never counted but I live in a sea of Hispanics and the vast majority of them , men anyway, tend to be NFL fans to one degree or the other. Not much different from the non-Hispanic population. Look at any random street corner group of Hispanics and you will see almost the same number of NFL attire-wearing people as in the general population.

I agree that in certain areas where more recently arrived Hispanics live they are more soccer friendly than football but both cultures seem to be adopting the others favorite game and with pretty good speed.

This unrelated post is detailed because it shows your tendency to do a ready-fire-aim attack on a medium you do not use, generally either oblivious to the facts or based on anecdotal evidence from "people you know".

Perhaps I need to go back to English class but I thought I was better at writing than I apparently am. I do not believe I have "attacked" radio or electronic media in general. My purpose was to illustrate an alternative view and yes, anecdotal evidence is used because I have neither the time nor the interest to commission a full blown research paper of my own. On more than one occasion I have given real life examples to back up an opinion and received nothing but criticism in return because "it's anecdotal evidence" or "it's just your family". I'm sorry but anecdotal evidence is not necessarily wrong. It may not have the spread of a national survey but it is true in its own area. Just a few days ago I gave the example of my youngest daughter favoring Smooth Jazz as her genre of choice. I did that to illustrate that it isn't only greybeards who like that format. Instead of "oh, yeah, she is unique" or some such comment I got back several critical posts that she didn't represent the demo. I did not attack the poster who gave reason why the format died nor did I say my daughter represented uncharted territory. So just who is attacking whom?

And your case is not enhance when you put "quotes" around the word "experts". A number of true industry experts have refuted your unsubstantiated beliefs and opinions... people like BigA and KM Richards. And folks like b-turner, who may have given you the most credible insights of all as he has experienced local market radio from the trenches while being on the air, a seller and a manager. There are a wide variety of people of experience who have tried to show you that, although you can listen to whatever you want, your opinions are not in tune with the business and programming reality of radio, but you have not listened.

Obviously I do not know each and every one of these people personally or even by reputation. I largely go by the comments I read here. But I do tend to believe any large group will have few true "experts" so to consider each and every one a true expert, no matter what field of expertise, is lunacy.

I have learned a lot over the several years on this forum and I appreciate the insight I have gained from some of you. It was not my intent to minimize any one person's standing by the use of quotes.
 
Incorrect on print circulation numbers. To qualify for the mailing permit with the post office, publications must complete and print a return in their publication that details ownership, frequency of publication, number printed, a breakdown of where the publication is mailed and even how many newsstand sales occur over the past 52 weeks. It has to jive with the post office records of the number of pieces mailed with that permit number.

Ironically, newspapers, especially, don't like showing that. Newspapers like to tout, for example, we believe we reach 2,500 sets of eyes in each weekly edition although they have 1,000 copies in circulation. Of that 1,000, it might be 50% or more that go out of county and out of state. So, the number that really sees the ad locally is just a fraction of the total circulation.

It is interesting that so many think a company that conducts business by conducting surveys just makes up stuff and stays in business. Without integrity they don't survive. Sure, you can skew results by a number of ways but the key is without integrity, the good and bad revealed, you'll soon be out of business. What people tend to forget is it is the business that releases their commissioned survey results and nothing says they have to reveal the complete survey.

As for measuring 'effectiveness', isn't what this thread is all about the very result of effectiveness? People buy stuff. When it does what they want it to do, they will buy more. To think radio advertising is not effective is just plain stupid. If it was ineffective they would not buy, period. There would be almost no commercials if any at all if radio advertising didn't work. In radio we don't prove effectiveness. That gets proved at the cash register at that business.

I love what a former radio station owner told a business owner who said radio advertising was like throwing money out the window. He told the business owner he could come over to his business with 5 crisp $100 bills and run one thirty second spot saying the first 5 people to come by the business get a new crisp $100 bill by simply asking. The owner said if it worked, the guy had to buy a regular schedule with the station. The business owner refused to take him up on it.
 
Incorrect on print circulation numbers. To qualify for the mailing permit with the post office, publications must complete and print a return in their publication that details ownership, frequency of publication, number printed, a breakdown of where the publication is mailed and even how many newsstand sales occur over the past 52 weeks. It has to jive with the post office records of the number of pieces mailed with that permit number.

Ironically, newspapers, especially, don't like showing that. Newspapers like to tout, for example, we believe we reach 2,500 sets of eyes in each weekly edition although they have 1,000 copies in circulation. Of that 1,000, it might be 50% or more that go out of county and out of state. So, the number that really sees the ad locally is just a fraction of the total circulation.

I've been in the newspaper business for about 35 years. My employer for most of that time liked to promote a figure three times its circulation (the number it reported to the Audit Bureau of Circulations) as our total readership. When we had a paid circ of 30,000, our house ads and billboards bragged of 90,000 readers -- the thinking being that dad, mom and at least one child in a "typical" household will read that day's home-delivered paper.
 
You make a good point except it doesn't address the issue. For instance, the print media also publish circulation numbers but the numbers don't come from businesses directly associated with the newspapers and magazines. Again, I am not saying the numbers are inaccurate or skewed by the business relationship but it does lend a certain suspicion.

From Wikipedia:

"The Alliance for Audited Media (AAM) is a North American non-profit industry organization founded in 1914 by the Association of National Advertisers to help ensure media transparency and trust among advertisers and media companies. Originally known as the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC), today the AAM is a leading source of verified media information and technology platform certifications, providing standards, audit services and data for the advertising and publishing industries."

This organization, which is independent of the newspapers but supported mostly by their fees, uses the same model as the ratings companies in the US which are supported by the electronic media but used by media buyers. The advertising community supported the founding of the Electronic Media Research Council (now just MRC) to audit the measurement companies.

The ratings companies are no more "directly associated" with the broadcast industry than the printing ink industry is "closely associated" with the newspaper business. In both instances, they are vendors.

I wasn't going to mention the drug industry but since you brought it up - a somewhat similar situation exists. Look carefully at the various claims made by specific drugs and/or medical products and you will find that most often there is some sort of survey touting the benefits which was commissioned by the manufacturer. Again, this does not prove collusion or misinformation but an arm's length separation would be better.

That's not even remotely similar. A product promoting sales via claims, testimonials or statistics is simply doing advertising. Where the comparison would be valid would be in the case of a comparison by big pharma of, let's say, herbal medicine, homeopathic medicine and prescription medicines.

Our discussion has been based on the industry position that about 93% of Americans listen to radio each week, and that radio is a superb point of purchase medium as well as a great reach and frequency enhancing one. Everything else, such as number of commercials, placement of spots, availability of different formats involves radio stations and their owners trying to position each station so as to achieve the maximum number of listeners that advertisers have an interest in reaching.

And how do you measure "effectiveness"? All I'm saying is the only way to measure the benefit of any advertising, radio or otherwise, is the impact on sales or brand. Every other method is just fuzzy math.

In local direct advertising, businesses measure results at the cash register. And as b-turner mentioned, they also know what happens when they don't advertise. In agency accounts where most campaigns are multi-media, the campaign itself is measured via often extremely precise methods that include daily tracking of retail movement or similar types of tracking.

But agencies don't look at the effectiveness of individual stations or even different media. They know that only a small percentage of messages generate sales so they look at enhancing the message while the agency client has to look at competitive pricing, style, design, taste, distribution, brand image and all the other factors involved in making the sale that don't involve just making the offering known to consumers. The medium is not the message... which is why when Arbitron considered doing an engagement metric, it was decided not to proceed as neither radio nor advertisers wanted that data.[/SIZE][/FONT]
 
I've been in the newspaper business for about 35 years. My employer for most of that time liked to promote a figure three times its circulation (the number it reported to the Audit Bureau of Circulations) as our total readership. When we had a paid circ of 30,000, our house ads and billboards bragged of 90,000 readers -- the thinking being that dad, mom and at least one child in a "typical" household will read that day's home-delivered paper.

My step father, who thought I was an idiot for going into radio, used to do that same math for his paper and would point out that there were over a million two hundred thousand readers each day.

What you describe is in their blood, which was about half petroleum-based ink back then.

When I brought up that few women read the sports section and that most people skip the financial section and that not everyone reads every page, he would get quite crinkly.

Yet nowhere did the ABC data support the idea that a paper had more than one reader.
 
Two points.


Just a few days ago I gave the example of my youngest daughter favoring Smooth Jazz as her genre of choice. I did that to illustrate that it isn't only greybeards who like that format. Instead of "oh, yeah, she is unique" or some such comment I got back several critical posts that she didn't represent the demo.

In context, what we said equates to what you think we should have said. "Unique" and "doesn't represent the demo" mean the same thing when we speak of listeners who are outside the target demographic. Perhaps you need to read what we write with a broader perspective than looking for points to "prove us wrong".

landtuna said:
It was not my intent to minimize any one person's standing by the use of quotes.

Sadly, sir, when you post your opinions as forcefully as you have, in an intent to prove verifiable facts wrong, your use of quotes around the word "expert" is more than just minimization. It is an insult.
 


My step father, who thought I was an idiot for going into radio, used to do that same math for his paper and would point out that there were over a million two hundred thousand readers each day.

What you describe is in their blood, which was about half petroleum-based ink back then.

When I brought up that few women read the sports section and that most people skip the financial section and that not everyone reads every page, he would get quite crinkly.

Yet nowhere did the ABC data support the idea that a paper had more than one reader.

I actually found the idea believable because, while I was growing up, mom and dad would read the paper at the breakfast table and I'd read what dad was reading sitting across from me while he read it! Yes, I could read the paper upside down. It's an odd skill I retain to this day, as a copy editor who can spot a typo even when the page is upside down or on its side. Sadly, it has not made me rich, and is even less likely to in years to come. Anyway, since my sister was uninterested in the paper and my brother either hadn't yet been born or was just a baby-toddler during those years, three sets of eyes, exactly, did read each day's paper!

Oh, our advertisers were quite aware that the sports and financial sections were poorly read. Their pages were practically ad-free. Sports got business from a tire store, an off-track betting teletheater and the WWF (once a month), and that was about it. I don't think anyone ever advertised on the business pages. Just about all the display ads were in the world/nation and local/state news sections.
 
Last edited:
Of course I do. Who doesn't? And if you didn't why bother typing them up?

They are opinions in the same way that my opinion that the sun will be blue tomorrow is an opinion. In other words, sustainable by no facts and insignificant anecdotal evidence.

Yes, you got me on that one. I am not familiar with the Tejano culture and tend to blend them into the larger Latino population. I don't, after all, live in Tejas.

But, again, you had an opinion which you posted without, I am fairly sure, even knowing that the station was not general market targeted and had a very old demographic.

Next time you are in Phoenix give a look at the crowd inside Cardinal Stadium during a game. Plenty of Hispanic faces.

How does an Hispanic look?

They could be Italian-Americans, persons of all kinds from the Middle East and northern Africa, Native Americans, or perhaps Korean or even from the Indian sub-continent. They also might look just like you or like the "average" French or Spanish citizen. "Hispanic" is a cultural denominator, not a race and not a single ethnicity even.

In any case, the Phoenix metro is now about one-third Hispanic. Obviously, some Hispanics, mostly those who are second generation and beyond, will like American football. But, as I stated, Hispanics under-index in all thing football. So there are far fewer Hispanics likely to watch the NFL and far more who culturally, like me, think "that's a bunch of grown men who stand around for five or ten minutes and then run and jump on top of each other".

I've never counted but I live in a sea of Hispanics and the vast majority of them , men anyway, tend to be NFL fans to one degree or the other. Not much different from the non-Hispanic population. Look at any random street corner group of Hispanics and you will see almost the same number of NFL attire-wearing people as in the general population.

I saw, years ago, a "campesino" in a coca field in Bolivia wearing a Cleveland Browns pullover. I guarantee you that he would think an actual football was a squashed "futból" and think it needed to be inflated or thrown away. I see US sports apparel being sold cheap all over Latin America and it is purchased because it looks cool or because it is cheap, not because there is any interest in the underlying sport.

Phoenix Hispanics are nearly 60% Spanish dominant. I guarantee you... because I've asked in formal research... about interest in American football and been told by those Spanish dominants that they have no interest, with most saying that they actually dislike the game.

I agree that in certain areas where more recently arrived Hispanics live they are more soccer friendly than football but both cultures seem to be adopting the others favorite game and with pretty good speed.

That, again, is your opinion. And it is wrong.

I do not believe I have "attacked" radio or electronic media in general.

My example of how you disparaged knowledgeable industry folks by calling them "experts" in quotes speaks volumes. In other words, they are false prophets and know not of what they speak because you hold the grail of truth based on anecdotes.

My purpose was to illustrate an alternative view and yes, anecdotal evidence is used because I have neither the time nor the interest to commission a full blown research paper of my own.

Then maybe you should listen to those of us who have actually commissioned or conducted market research. Knowing what we find by talking to thousands and thousands of people each year explains why radio stations do what they do today and not what you think they should do.

On more than one occasion I have given real life examples to back up an opinion and received nothing but criticism in return because "it's anecdotal evidence" or "it's just your family". I'm sorry but anecdotal evidence is not necessarily wrong.

And it is not necessarily right. It is, in statistics, n=1 which means you don't have a sample size that can be used for any type of conclusion at all.

Just a few days ago I gave the example of my youngest daughter favoring Smooth Jazz as her genre of choice. I did that to illustrate that it isn't only greybeards who like that format. Instead of "oh, yeah, she is unique" or some such comment I got back several critical posts that she didn't represent the demo. I did not attack the poster who gave reason why the format died nor did I say my daughter represented uncharted territory. So just who is attacking whom?

Your daughter is what is called an "outlier" which is someone who behaves not only unlike the majority of a group, but unlike any significant minority within the total group. In research, we look at degrees of variation from the norm, and we eliminate outliers so that their inclusion does not taint the end results.

For example, my preferred music is salsa. And within that category, salsa clásica. And within the classic salsa category, "salsa brava" which is hard core music. If I were surveyed for musical tastes as part of some station's format search, they would eliminate me as in my market of a half-million, there are probably only a handful of people with my taste in that music. So, like your daughter, I am an outlier. But I don't project my peculiar tastes on others... I find out what most people want and try to deliver it.
 
I actually found the idea believable because, while I was growing up, mom and dad would read the paper at the breakfast table and I'd read what dad was reading sitting across from me while he read it! Yes, I could read the paper upside down.

That is not so unusual. Every business to business salesperson worth their salt can read upside down and do that with everything on a customer's desk!
 
After re-reading some of the comments here, it seems that the professionals here possibly too quickly debunk anything they deem anecdotal. OK, research is a science -- that's understandable. But anecdotal isn't always wrong. For over a decade I worked in the industry. I wasn't a professional but was around them daily (programmers and consultants), and had access to the publications. The first year after I hired on, I went to the company picnic. I took my mom with me -- she was a Boeing worker at the time.

During the banter ratings came up. My mom asked whether at work listening was counted much. The answer was in the negative -- most listening was done in the car. My mom mentioned all the factory workers with their radios and headsets, listening eight hours a day. She was told that was interesting to hear about, but that didn't count for much in the ratings -- the research apparently didn't bear out any importance for at work listening. Any thing she said about it was 'anecdotal'.

Now I understand that at-work listening is considered important. How things change.

My point isn't to tell you professionals you are wrong -- obviously research has come a long way since the 1990's. But sometimes observations by listeners are more than just opinions. They may not always have merit -- maybe rarely do they have merit in the big picture -- but sometimes they can.
 
After re-reading some of the comments here, it seems that the professionals here possibly too quickly debunk anything they deem anecdotal. OK, research is a science -- that's understandable. But anecdotal isn't always wrong.

Anecdotal evidence can be occasionally right, but that falls under the theory that even a broken watch tells the right time twice a day.

Using observations of friends or family or co-workers will be "right" in proportion to the distribution of similar behaviours in the market. The problem is that you don't know if what you saw represents the majority, a sizable minority or a tiny group of outliers.

For over a decade I worked in the industry. I wasn't a professional but was around them daily (programmers and consultants), and had access to the publications. The first year after I hired on, I went to the company picnic. I took my mom with me -- she was a Boeing worker at the time.

During the banter ratings came up. My mom asked whether at work listening was counted much. The answer was in the negative -- most listening was done in the car. My mom mentioned all the factory workers with their radios and headsets, listening eight hours a day. She was told that was interesting to hear about, but that didn't count for much in the ratings -- the research apparently didn't bear out any importance for at work listening. Any thing she said about it was 'anecdotal'.

The problem here is that whoever said that at-work listening did not count much was just simply wrong. At work listening is about a third of all listening, and is about the same importance as in-car and at-home. It's been that way for decades... since Arbitron started identifying listening locations, in fact.

Before I conclude that you worked at a clueless radio station, I have to ask who told you that lie. And here is why I ask: when I was working with multiple stations' sales departments, I'd always ask a few basic questions. One of them was "what percentage of radio listening happens in the car?" The usual response was between 50% and 75%... and this despite access to ratings and industry material to the contrary. It's just a mindset.

Now I understand that at-work listening is considered important. How things change.

Nothing changed. You were just misinformed.

My point isn't to tell you professionals you are wrong -- obviously research has come a long way since the 1990's.

Actually, the underlying principles are the same in regards to most things except the introduction of the People Meter.

But sometimes observations by listeners are more than just opinions. They may not always have merit -- maybe rarely do they have merit in the big picture -- but sometimes they can.

As I said above, the problem with random observations is that there is no way to know if that observation represents the habits of many or just a tiny few.
 
Last edited:
My point isn't to tell you professionals you are wrong -- obviously research has come a long way since the 1990's. But sometimes observations by listeners are more than just opinions. They may not always have merit -- maybe rarely do they have merit in the big picture -- but sometimes they can.

There was more to Isaac Newton's theory of gravity than the anecdotal story of the apple falling from the tree. If that's all he had, he would have been laughed out of science. He coupled that folksy story with a lot of serious mathematics.
 
I am really curious about all the at-home radio listening that shows up in the statistics David cites. It's strange that hardly any of the non-pro radio geeks who frequent this forum do much home listening at all nor do they know people who listen at home. Yet apparently the PPMs indicate a huge "silent minority" of at-home listeners to local radio. Who are they? The stereotypical '50s/'60s "housewife" with the table radio tuned to the local pop, country or "lite" station all day? Do those people really exist in big numbers today?

Not doubting PPM here, just curious why people who claim to be very interested in radio also claim to do almost all their listening in the car while, at the same time, there are apparently millions of people they don't know about who do most of their listening at home. Seems to me the numbers should be reversed.
 
Last edited:
I am really curious about all the at-home radio listening that shows up in the statistics David cites. It's strange that hardly any of the non-pro radio geeks who frequent this forum do much home listening at all nor do they know people who listen at home. Yet apparently the PPMs indicate a huge "silent minority" of at-home listeners to local radio. Who are they? The stereotypical '50s/'60s "housewife" with the table radio tuned to the local pop, country or "lite" station all day? Do those people really exist in big numbers today?

Not doubting PPM here, just curious why people who claim to be very interested in radio also claim to do almost all their listening in the car while, at the same time, there are apparently millions of people they don't know about who do most of their listening at home. Seems to me the numbers should be reversed.

More people listen in the car than anywhere else, so it is the top of mind listening location. But it is not the only one.

Nielsen has rather accurate data from the PPM as to where listening occurred, but it is limited to at home and away from home. The meter knows when it is in proximity to its base and when it is not, and this is registered with every listening detection. In the diary, listeners indicate home, work, car and "other" (a park, the beach, jogging, whatever). We know that in both PPM and the diary that about a third of listening is in the home. And we know that in the roughly 200 diary markets, about a third is at work.

By station, there are variations. AM gets nearly 40% of listening in the car... likely swung by use of major market news and sports stations. But demographically, there is not a particular class of people who listen more at home other than, perhaps, the unemployed who would not be commuting and listening at work.
 
They are opinions in the same way that my opinion that the sun will be blue tomorrow is an opinion. In other words, sustainable by no facts and insignificant anecdotal evidence.

Unlike your example which has absolutely no basis for an opinion, mine did at least have marginal support - BUT - I never claimed it as anything other than an opinion and certainly not in the face of the many quoted surveys you and others have provided.

But, again, you had an opinion which you posted without, I am fairly sure, even knowing that the station was not general market targeted and had a very old demographic.

Already agreed with you on this one although I am unsure how a station with an existing "very old demographic" could improve by providing another program of the identical type.

How does an Hispanic look?

David, I have lived in largely Hispanic/Latino cities my whole life. My first wife was a Lopez. I can tell.

They could be Italian-Americans, persons of all kinds from the Middle East and northern Africa, Native Americans, or perhaps Korean or even from the Indian sub-continent. They also might look just like you or like the "average" French or Spanish citizen. "Hispanic" is a cultural denominator, not a race and not a single ethnicity even.

Interestingly, although my ancestry is English, Irish and Swedish my nickname in the Navy was "Puerto Rico". Perhaps it is from years in the SW sunshine but apparently in my younger days I also looked Latino.

In any case, the Phoenix metro is now about one-third Hispanic. Obviously, some Hispanics, mostly those who are second generation and beyond, will like American football. But, as I stated, Hispanics under-index in all thing football. So there are far fewer Hispanics likely to watch the NFL and far more who culturally, like me, think "that's a bunch of grown men who stand around for five or ten minutes and then run and jump on top of each other".

I agree that the Hispanic crowd at the Cardinals games are younger rather than older but that can also be attributed to the cost of tickets. As for football versus soccer - I played football from junior high school through high school and have been a big college fan ever since. Not so much an NFL fan since that game is decidedly less exciting due to their usual conservative play calls. When my boys were small they all played soccer and I served as coach, referee and league administrator for a number of years. I have often claimed that soccer is an ideal children's game mainly due to its simplicity and the exercise the kids get playing (and no waiting around for the next play to begin) but gets to be very boring as it turns into a defensive struggle as the players get older and stronger. In any event, it is a personal choice. Different strokes for different folks as they say.

I saw, years ago, a "campesino" in a coca field in Bolivia wearing a Cleveland Browns pullover. I guarantee you that he would think an actual football was a squashed "futból" and think it needed to be inflated or thrown away. I see US sports apparel being sold cheap all over Latin America and it is purchased because it looks cool or because it is cheap, not because there is any interest in the underlying sport.

But I wasn't talking about t-shirts in a South American country. I am talking about expensive jerseys on an American street corner.

Phoenix Hispanics are nearly 60% Spanish dominant. I guarantee you... because I've asked in formal research... about interest in American football and been told by those Spanish dominants that they have no interest, with most saying that they actually dislike the game.

No doubt if you had ask non-Hispanic females you would get similar results. I am not claiming that football is more popular then soccer among Hispanics. Simply that it is popular.

My example of how you disparaged knowledgeable industry folks by calling them "experts" in quotes speaks volumes. In other words, they are false prophets and know not of what they speak because you hold the grail of truth based on anecdotes.

If I had wanted to call anyone a false prophet I could have done so. As I said before that was not my intent.

But I don't project my peculiar tastes on others... I find out what most people want and try to deliver it.

Unlike you, I have never been in the business of providing music to others. I am on the listening end only. But we were talking mainly about the effectiveness of commercial messages on radio. I have accepted your opinion that I belong to a demo which is no longer important to radio in general so I cannot expect to find my preferred music except possibly on local AM stations (which is true in my case). If I were a radio programmer I would undoubtedly operate just as you do with studies and surveys being the consensus for programming. The truth is, my interest in broadcast music effectively died as Oldies outlets died and Classic Hits segued into late 80's and 90's stuff. I decided that if my music was to endure I would have to build my own library which is exactly what I've done. Fortunately, HD radio has saved several formats from complete obliteration so I continue to patronize those few. But mainstream radio and I have probably parted company forever.
 
Already agreed with you on this one although I am unsure how a station with an existing "very old demographic" could improve by providing another program of the identical type.

They have, not unlike 1440 in Scottsdale, a business model that depends on local direct sales at low prices. So anything that builds usage among existing cumers is a plus.


I asked, "How does an Hispanic look?"
David, I have lived in largely Hispanic/Latino cities my whole life. My first wife was a Lopez. I can tell.

Funny, while the US Census recognized me as being Hispanic for the 1980 and 1990 Census in Puerto Rico, and I've lived in Latin America or in the Hispanic US community for all my adult life, I can not tell with any certainty who is Hispanic and who is not.

As to the rest of your post, I understand your perspective and when you explain it in the fashion you just did, I respect it. Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom