Too many commercials!

[landtuna]

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.

I do not claim 100% accuracy.

 

[K.M. Richards]

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.

For the record, sir, that is the kind of statement that can be easily misinterpreted as meaning "I do not listen to the radio" and it is similar statements that caused me to come to that conclusion earlier. Even in context, that's how it appears to read.

Your paragraph would have stood just fine without that last sentence -- it is clearer in meaning without it, in fact -- and I politely suggest that further miscommunication would be prevented if you didn't add statements like those.

 

[landtuna]

For the record, sir, that is the kind of statement that can be easily misinterpreted as meaning "I do not listen to the radio" and it is similar statements that caused me to come to that conclusion earlier. Even in context, that's how it appears to read.

Your paragraph would have stood just fine without that last sentence -- it is clearer in meaning without it, in fact -- and I politely suggest that further miscommunication would be prevented if you didn't add statements like those.

With all the discussion regarding the minority of HD radio I didn't think my statement regarding "mainstream" radio could possibly be misinterpreted. There are almost daily criticisms of HD radio as being non-functional, fraught with problems and not contributing to stations revenue - some people might use the word "worthless" to describe HD. Obviously, I do not and right now that is my only link to radio because that's where my preferred formats are located.

In fact, since I received my desktop HD radio it has been on constantly whenever I am online. I probably have more TSL than most people on this forum.

 

[boombox4]

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.

Nothing changed. You were just misinformed.

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.

The people who gave us that information were a table full of people who programmed and consulted stations in major and minor markets. Perhaps they were emphasizing the importance of certain dayparts and didn't figure the plebes would understand the dynamics of ratings.

I don't know. I worked in production.

Either way, thank you for the response. It's refreshing to know that people who listen at work and listen at home count. The standard media misconception (what usually got printed in the papers in articles about radio) was that only drive time counted.

 

[vchimpanzee]

I saw this in an actual newspaper yesterday. This man believes people will change stations if there are too many commercials and the message won't be heard.

http://www.newsobserver.com/entertainment/music-news-reviews/article47555425.html

 

[TheBigA]

If you have another way to pay for radio, let me know. Until then, the way is with commercials. And since radio isn't getting cheaper to do, they're not going away, regardless of what people think. So you can take your medicine like a good boy, or pay $15 a month for Sirius.

The article says after the commercials, they played 9 songs in a row. That's about a half hour of music without interruption. For some reason, no one ever talks about the other half of the equation. The commercial load hasn't increased in 40 years, as the article correctly says. So I really don't understand why it's become an issue lately.

The fact is that commercial loads ARE increasing for online radio companies like Pandora and Spotify, and apparently, Spotify is going to be de-emphasizing the ad-supported service in favor of subscription radio. So the choice is very clear. Listen to commercials, or pay a monthly fee.

 

[landtuna]

I saw this in an actual newspaper yesterday. This man believes people will change stations if there are too many commercials and the message won't be heard.

http://www.newsobserver.com/entertainment/music-news-reviews/article47555425.html

There is more than just spot load in that article. Also are stopset length and an overwhelming number of young demo people who admit hitting the pre-set when a stopset comes on. This directly disputes the opinions voiced by industry insiders on this forum who have continually said surveys tell them people do not change stations at commercial time. My personal experience, since I was a teen, are directly in line with the college survey and my own family and friends. Measuring how many listeners have totally given up radio because of the commercial load is more difficult but suffice to say I am the only member of my extended family that still listens to the radio in any form.

 

[landtuna]

The commercial load hasn't increased in 40 years, as the article correctly says. So I really don't understand why it's become an issue lately.

The issue, of course, is that the impression is that commercial loads have increased and like that famous tennis player says "impressions are reality".

 

[TheBigA]

There is more than just spot load in that article. Also are stopset length and an overwhelming number of young demo people who admit hitting the pre-set when a stopset comes on. This directly disputes the opinions voiced by industry insiders on this forum who have continually said surveys tell them people do not change stations at commercial time.

It's been MY experience that what people say and what they do are often two different things. And that's the case here. We can SEE what they do, so what they say doesn't matter.

The issue, of course, is that the impression is that commercial loads have increased and like that famous tennis player says "impressions are reality".

It doesn't matter. The facts are the facts, and nothing is getting cheaper, so no amount of complaining is going to change anything. It ends up sounding very selfish and childish.

 

[landtuna]

It doesn't matter. The facts are the facts, and nothing is getting cheaper, so no amount of complaining is going to change anything. It ends up sounding very selfish and childish.

Not sure what "selfish and childish" has to go with anything. I was just commenting that reality isn't as important as impression. If people think they are having to listen to more and more commercials then nothing will change that opinion and they will search for outlets with fewer interruptions.

The other message in that link was that, like cable, radio is on a downward spiral. If people feel they are paying too much for a service or, in radio's case, wasting too much time listening to blaring commercials, they will go away. Your continued pleas that it takes more commercials to finance the radio station aren't going to matter to the majority. They have other options and radio is not the necessity it once was. I'm not trying to piss anyone off. As the famous Howard Cosell said many times "just telling it like it is". And apparently we are finally hearing from industry people who don't have their rose colored glasses on.

 

[b-turner]

Another thing people do not consider is the high cost of entry in to radio. There is a limited number of stations anywhere you go. In some cases a new station, say, outside LPFM or translator, simply cannot be fit on the dial, so the radio station sells based on revenue, equipment, past performance, market potential and a premium on the fact there is a limited number of radio stations available at any one location.

Sure radio's selling price has dropped in recent years as larger groups have fine tuned their portfolios but the numbers are staggering. Sure, you hear about stations selling dirt cheap but there is a reason for that (in fact a friend bought a station for $30,000 in a city of 75,000 only to spend about $120,000 to replace rusted towers, eroded ground system, new transmitter and partly burned up phasor. Then he negotiated the land lease and rented studio space, installed a studio/transmitter link, built a studio and had to file a full proof with the FCC. All of that before one commercial was sold.

Many radio station owners, if the truth be told, likely work many hours a week just to generate the income to pay the bank (actually investors). And don't think operating costs are a breeze. A computer in a closet might need $20,000 a month before you even think of paying a salary.

Radio pays ASCAP/BMI/SESAC fees even if you run a talk format. There are annual fees paid to the FCC. And if you run a business, think taxes, property taxes, insurance and all those other things people usually don't think of like equipment failures and maintaining the facility in accordance with FCC Rules.

I'm not saying radio is the only business with high priced entry or that the struggle to reach breakeven is harder than some other businesses but I can certainly tell you it is not an easy road. The numbers could scare off anyone. And to make it worse, the FCC claims the license. In other words, you have been qualified by them to earn a license for a period of time. That's why banks won't loan money in most instances (you cannot put up the license as a guarantee). That means investors who are tougher to deal with and sometimes expect more.

A friend bought 30% of a small market station for $800,000. It was billing under $300,000 a year when he got it. He knew what he was doing and doubled billing and built the station's reputation to the market leader by about year 5. Now he owns 100% but walking in to that station with no manager or sales staff was pretty scary. That $800,000 plus interest was paid out at $6 a spot. Considering he was just what the station needed, it worked. He had to increase revenue and lower expenses to pull it off and managed to do that without diminishing the product for the listener or advertiser.

When you hear those commercials, it's the only audio that didn't cost the station and generally speaking, the only source of revenue. Certainly, you have to do right by the advertiser and the listener, both wanting different things, and have to try a happy medium where listeners like you enough to listen and advertisers get enough response to continue to buy your station. If you don't pull that off, you won't last.

 

[TheBigA]

If people think they are having to listen to more and more commercials then nothing will change that opinion and they will search for outlets with fewer interruptions.

You obviously don't mean "fewer interruptions," since we're only talking about two per hour, which is fewer than anything, including Pandora and TV.

The downward spiral relates to getting stuff for free. That's what's disappearing. Everyone wants to get paid, and the only issue is how to pay them. So you have pay me with cash, or pay me with advertising.

 

[K.M. Richards]

This directly disputes the opinions voiced by industry insiders on this forum who have continually said surveys tell them people do not change stations at commercial time.

I would like you, sir, to please STOP calling our quoting the Arbitron report "opinions". The report is factual and was derived from an analysis of data gathered by the Personal People Meter devices which are used to measure radio listening.

You have consistently called statements of fact "opinions" while phrasing your own opinions as if they were facts, when all you ever cite is anectodal information. If you continue this, as well as continuing your circular arguments, I will ask for this thread to be closed. If the management decides to do so, I guarantee you personally will receive a forced "time out" from the entire site.

The choice is yours to make.

Further ...

And apparently we are finally hearing from industry people who don't have their rose colored glasses on.

To whom are you referring? I see no agreement with your position from the industry people here ...

 

[landtuna]

You obviously don't mean "fewer interruptions," since we're only talking about two per hour, which is fewer than anything, including Pandora and TV.

Two what per hour? Individual spots or stopsets? The only station I am familiar with that is even close to two spots per hour is my HD-2 (translator fed by an AM Oldies outlet). Totally automated and running a multi-hour infomercial several mornings per week. It is not anywhere near the norm in any way shape or form.

I haven't spent any measurable time on Pandora but the primary drawback to me is the number of unwanted songs I must sit through to "record" my favs. That type of presentation is not an option to me so the spot load it carries are inconsequential. Obviously, there are a significant number of former radio listeners which prefer Pandora to their radio options.

 

[landtuna]

I would like you, sir, to please STOP calling our quoting the Arbitron report "opinions". The report is factual and was derived from an analysis of data gathered by the Personal People Meter devices which are used to measure radio listening.

I do not recall ever quoting the Arbitron report an opinion. The "opinions" I was referring to are the industry people who post here. Although some of them have shared their Arbitron statistics I have no idea where others obtain their information and, as such, they are opinions to me. As for PPM it has already been established that the only thing it measures is that a certain station is playing. It cannot determine if anyone is actually listening or paying attention. At best, it is an estimate. I have the TV playing while I type this. Am I paying attention to the TV?

You have consistently called statements of fact "opinions" while phrasing your own opinions as if they were facts, when all you ever cite is anectodal information.

I have never claimed my posts were anything but my personal opinions. I have presented anecdotal information from my personal experience and that of others. I am not aware that is not permitted by the T&C's of this forum.

If you continue this, as well as continuing your circular arguments, I will ask for this thread to be closed. If the management decides to do so, I guarantee you personally will receive a forced "time out" from the entire site.

The circular argument you refer to was a link by an industry insider who was voicing an opinion that I agree with. My post merely pointed that out. By threatening me you are very close to censorship. Perhaps if my posts irritate you that much you should just skip them.

To whom are you referring? I see no agreement with your position from the industry people here ...

As I stated in the above paragraph the industry person I referred to was the author of the linked article.

 

[davideduardo]

Not sure what "selfish and childish" has to go with anything. I was just commenting that reality isn't as important as impression. If people think they are having to listen to more and more commercials then nothing will change that opinion and they will search for outlets with fewer interruptions.

However, the fact show that 92% of listeners do not tune out during commercial breaks. The majority of that 8% tunes out in the first minute or so, so whether a stopset lasts 3 minutes or 6 minutes has no bearing on tune-out. The tune-outs are mostly cued by the first spot, not the length of the stopset.

Since the PPM can measure listening as many as a dozen times a minute, there is Nielsen data available to match against the playing of songs, the bits in the morning show, traffic reports and individual spots in a stopset. Another company, MediaMonitors, electronically detects song and commercial play on most of the important stations in the PPM markets, and then uses Nielsen data to match "meter activity" moment by moment.

So we can see exactly what happens in the first, the third and even the last spot of a stopset.

The data her is not being interpreted. It is not a "survey". It is simply the facts of the PPM paired with the facts of what each station is doing every moment of every day.

The other message in that link was that, like cable, radio is on a downward spiral.

Slow growth or low growth is hardly a "downward spiral". Manufacturing sinks and toilets and faucets is not a growth industry, either. But there are a number of good companies making an selling those articles successfully and with a nice profit.

You need to temper your language. And you also needs to consider that radio is moving into new media, but it is doing that slowly as at present there is no viable business model for streaming.

Better yet, look at the statements coming from Pandora that they have no current way of being viable.

Your continued pleas that it takes more commercials to finance the radio station aren't going to matter to the majority.

Yet the commercial loads of major radio stations today is considerably lower than in the 50's and 60's.

And apparently we are finally hearing from industry people who don't have their rose colored glasses on.

Nobody is disputing the facts revealed by measurements of listener behavior as seen in the PPM. There are many opinions about how to deal with new media, particularly pull-based products. But even there, there is pretty solid agreement that, other than a monthly subscription based model, there is no viable economic model. On the other hand, traditional radio stations with good signals or sustainable niche targets are making very good money.

 

[davideduardo]

I do not recall ever quoting the Arbitron report an opinion. The "opinions" I was referring to are the industry people who post here. Although some of them have shared their Arbitron statistics I have no idea where others obtain their information and, as such, they are opinions to me. As for PPM it has already been established that the only thing it measures is that a certain station is playing. It cannot determine if anyone is actually listening or paying attention. At best, it is an estimate. I have the TV playing while I type this. Am I paying attention to the TV?

I have told you before that Arbitron, just a few years ago, formed a work group of ad agency, buying service and radio representatives to determine whether a metric that showed "engagement" should be developed. The result is that we do not have an engagement metric. That's because the time buyers are looking for impressions, and a measure of engagement is not necessary for their business model which already accounts for the fact that a percentage of impressions will reach people who are not paying attention, not interested in that kind of product or not economically active.

You continue to beat the "attention" horse, yet that quadruped died years ago. The folks who pay for advertising already contemplate "attention" into all their media buys, ranging from banners on the web to billboards and magazines.

Ratings books, when they came in printed form, always said, right on the cover, "audience estimates". Now that is included in the DoM for ratings and anyone can see that.

We know ratings are a poll, but it is a very accurate estimate and we know the margin of error quite precisely. Radio folks are always asking Nielsen for improvements and the estimates get better and better over time. Again, they are accurate enough for advertisers to use them as a base for billions of dollars in transnational business every year.

 

[TheBigA]

Two what per hour? Individual spots or stopsets?

You said "interruptions." A stop-set is an interruption. That's the point. Radio stations only interrupt or stop the music twice an hour. The tradeoff is they then play 7 minutes of spots. But then you get 25 minutes of non-stop music.

 

[KeithE4]

You said "interruptions." A stop-set is an interruption. That's the point. Radio stations only interrupt or stop the music twice an hour. The tradeoff is they then play 7 minutes of spots. But then you get 25 minutes of non-stop music.

But how many people have the patience to sit through a 7-minute stop-set, regardless of their age? Speaking only for myself (and I'm another cantankerous old man who's long past the Sacred Sales Demos[sup]TM[/sup] ) , I'll sit through 2-3 minutes, and if the program doesn't return, I change stations. I can't see kids who the advertisers are trying to reach being any more patient than me. Seems to me that four or five 3-minute breaks would be better than two of 7-minutes, in terms of keeping the listeners tuned in. I'm guessing that some researcher has figured otherwise.

 

[davideduardo]

But how many people have the patience to sit through a 7-minute stop-set, regardless of their age? Speaking only for myself (and I'm another cantankerous old man who's long past the Sacred Sales Demos[sup]TM[/sup] ) , I'll sit through 2-3 minutes, and if the program doesn't return, I change stations. I can't see kids who the advertisers are trying to reach being any more patient than me. Seems to me that four or five 3-minute breaks would be better than two of 7-minutes, in terms of keeping the listeners tuned in. I'm guessing that some researcher has figured otherwise.

The bulk of dial-changes make their move in the first two minutes of a stopset, so having three or four stops increases considerably the loss of listeners.