VALLEY RADIO NEEDS AN OVERHAUL ASAP!! - Nevermind, I've given up

[davideduardo]

How do you explain stations like
KAHM, FM 102.1, here in Prescott, AZ. They have been playing essentially the same music
(easy listening) since sign on in 1981. That genre probably peaked in the 60's or 70's.
They would have to be reasonably profitable to continue for so very long. When I listen,
I hear spots for businesses locally and around the region, including Phoenix. I hear spots
for businesses in Sedona, Cottonwood, Flagstaff, Phoenix and locally, of course. How do
they sell that airtime when people are not listening? We have a few local stations here,
some translators from Flagstaff, Cottonwood, Seligman, Williams and several Phoenix
"rimshot" stations that also reach our area. There are quite a few choices here, given
our small population. How do these stations and ones like it around the country survive???

The market is Prescott / Flagstaff / Sedona, and is one of those strange markets where most of the stations do not cover all the significant parts of the market. There is little national business.

Prescott has among the highest percentages of retirees of the whole country. KAHM has a 6 share, and it is almost all over 65. But its local ownership had great relationships and the station has billed over $60 k a month for many years. But the whole Prescott / Flag market has about $8 million total dollars of radio spending.

12 of the Phoenix stations each bill more than all the Prescott/Flagstaff market stations combined.

Why does big city radio seem to be in such disarray???

There are about $200 million radio dollars in Phoenix, and much of it is agency driven (local, regional and national) so ratings drive revenue, with relationships not being the driver here.

Stations are not in disarray. They simply react to consistent ratings problems by making changes.

 

[indieradioguy]

That's because Los Buckeye Boyz haven't responded yet! KDKB - broad~casting KWSS - narrow~casting. And that's all we have to say.

Well stated. Cheers, Doc.

 

[KMGX]

How do you know the listeners are happy? If they were, you wouldn't have Sirius XM, Pandora or internet radio.

This is the point, exactly.

If something was working then there really wouldn't be demand for similar types of media, but obviously Sirius/XM, Pandora, Internet Raido and alternative media are doing quite well (particularly the latter example). People will go where there is good content and that's where terrestrial radio is just losing out. They arrived a bit late to the party with regard to internet radio and, while they're still doing alright with it, the competition is alarmingly greater than terrestrial.

 

[davideduardo]

How do you know the listeners are happy? If they were, you wouldn't have Sirius XM, Pandora or internet radio.

Sirius and Pandora exist because technology made it possible, just as FM exists because technology improved over the air broadcast capabilities.

Listeners are not unhappy... they just have more choices. So all of them become highly fragmented. Today, the biggest fragment is over the air radio.

 

[davideduardo]

This is the point, exactly.

If something was working then there really wouldn't be demand for similar types of media, but obviously Sirius/XM, Pandora, Internet Raido and alternative media are doing quite well (particularly the latter example). People will go where there is good content and that's where terrestrial radio is just losing out. They arrived a bit late to the party with regard to internet radio and, while they're still doing alright with it, the competition is alarmingly greater than terrestrial.

How can you say that Internet radio is doing "quite well" when none of the pureplay Internet radio-like services has figured out how to make a profit?

 

[TheBigA]

People will go where there is good content and that's where terrestrial radio is just losing out.

Maybe you can tell me what "good content" exists at Pandora and other internet platforms besides the basic redistribution of recorded music. AFAIK, that's all they're doing. It's all technology, no content.

 

[b-turner]

Of all the research I've seen, XM/Sirius hits about 2.5% of America. While that is substantial, when you consider the number of 'stations' offered, essentially the listening audience of one channel would likely be fairly insignificant in number compared to top 10 markets. The numbers actually include newly purchased and for sale inventory of cars and trucks offering Sirius/XM via a free trial offer. The complaint is when the numbers include unsold automobile inventory, the numbers are exaggerated but by what number, I can only speculate.

As for internet radio, while there may be hundreds of thousands of choices, nobody has figured out a way to make money, much less break even. The cost per minute, per listener is so staggering, there's no business model yet to produce the income needed. Unfortunately, it is likely the survivors will be the big corporations.

Listening is really minimal regardless of the glowing reports I've seen. It seems most listening is to streams of over the air broadcast stations and those streams owned by the radio broadcasters. Pandora might have the numbers but not the income. The business model doesn't work. One of two things must happen: pay to listen or sucker more investment dollars for payoff much further down the line. Think Live 365 here. They couldn't get the investors to continue as the fees changed.

I looked at many internet only stations. Over the air stations have small online numbers...maybe 300 versus say 30,000 a quarter hour for over the air. College stations I surveyed did terrible. My choice of college internet only stations was based on tech savvy students and programming fine tuned for the potential target audience. When 10,000 students represent only 1,000 clicks a month at an average of 2 listens a month for 2.2 hours a month is pretty horrible for a station and not all of those clicks were local. This was essentially an average of about 20 schools. I chose only schools where the station actively marketed themselves on campus and seemed to have good awareness among students. Most also aired college sporting events. Every station manager complained about not be able to break about barrier of about 1 in 200 on campus being a regular listener. One school where online and a cable TV channel simulcast (audio on the message/announcement channel) was offered, 78% opted for listening via TV versus internet per their latest survey conducted for this school of 43,000 students.

If anything, I think we are in the infancy stages of Internet Radio. I think the issue is building awareness of a station and changing listening habits. I think that will happen. Not too many years ago a home computer wasn't in homes, so everything changes.

KMGX claims radio is pretty much on life support and we refuse to admit it. The typical person fails to understand radio as in over the air radio is streaming. More internet listening is to over the air stations and the product they create. Many making that claim ignore radio's online presence and that we consider listeners of radio's on air product to be by any device where the signal can be heard.

You might consider this: with so many broadcast TV stations and the number of people using online or cable to receive the over the air TV channels, it is accurate many TV stations have very minimal over the air audiences but when you include the other options to receive the over the air signal, they are doing pretty well.

 

[thepumpin1]

Sirius and Pandora exist because technology made it possible, just as FM exists because technology improved over the air broadcast capabilities.

Listeners are not unhappy... they just have more choices. So all of them become highly fragmented. Today, the biggest fragment is over the air radio.

More choices wouldn't exist if someone didn't think that the previous choices were actually giving people what they want. It isn't necessarily because the technology is there.

 

[thepumpin1]

For example, why does Phoenix needs FOUR top 40 stations playing the same thing? I understand Kiss 104.7, but why you also have to have Hot 97.5 AND 103.9, as well as Live 101.5? There isn't a large enough pie in the market. Don't you think it would be more effective for the latter stations to fill a format hole, rather than duke it out for a certain percentage of listeners? Live 101.5's format is too all over the place. They cannot decide if they want to be a rhythmic or mainstream CHR. Live needs to go back to Rhythmic CHR when they first started back in 2007. As far as 97.5/103.9, why do you need a simulcast of the same thing? Can't one of the frequencies be flipped to fill another format hole, maybe smooth/urban AC? That market isn't being served in the valley. Please don't say there isn't a market for it, how do you know if you don't try to do the research. More and more people (particularly African-Americans) from the east are moving to the valley and there really isn't a station for them to listen to if they want to hear the latest R&B songs. Not saying all AA's strictly listen to R&B, but I am saying they don't really have the option when it comes to radio in Phoenix. Lastly, why TWO country stations in Phoenix?

 

[TheBigA]

For example, why does Phoenix needs FOUR top 40 stations playing the same thing?

Competition. Why does Phoenix need so many fast food hamburger places? Competition.

If all of the radio stations were owned by one company, the way Sirius owns all of satellite radio, you'd have one Top 40 station. But because there is competition, you have four companies who each want a piece of the Top 40 market.

Formats aren't chosen for variety. They're chosen for their ability to make money. There are two country stations because they make money. A lot of it.

In practical applications, if one country station is playing a song you don't like, switch the station, and chances are the other station is playing a different song. Same with Top 40 or any duplicated format. It may be the same format, but at any given time, they're each playing different songs, so it gives the listeners choices. From the programmers point of view, it means we have to be sure we're playing the most popular songs at all times so it's less likely someone will switch.

 

[b-turner]

I get your frustration. When I was growing up all but a few stations on the AM dial were MOR and all but a couple of the FM stations were beautiful music. You were lucky to have two top 40s, two country stations, an album rocker FM, an urban, a classical and a Christian station among a sea of MOR and beautiful. There might have been as many as a dozen MOR AM stations and about the same number running some variation of Beautiful Music on FM. As a kid I knew that made for more losers than winners in the MOR and Beautiful Music formats.

Sometimes it is the various companies owning the stations trying to create a portfolio of stations that makes them have a more desirable portfolio when it comes to sales. Simply put, it helps lesser popular formats survive in the market. Sometimes that format is so universally popular in a market that a number of stations can obtain enough audience to be viable. While other format options are not being tried, it might mean there is not enough of an audience there to do better than they currently are doing. While I'm not familiar with the Phoenix market, I suspect each of the Top 40 stations have a segment they target (ie: one might be more rhythmic and another station not so much, etc.).

In every market there is overlap, less today than in prior decades. Here in Houston we have, I think, 5 sports talk stations, for example. All seem to make it just fine as they've been in the format for years. We have gaping holes unfilled as well. For the most part, those holes had been covered in the past without enough success in the right age groups to be financially viable compared to other format options (ie: one format hole might get a 1.5 rating but going with a format similar to another station might get a 2.5 rating).

Rest assured markets are always evolving and you can bet radio stations are staying on top of that, so don't expect it to always remain as things are now. Perhaps those holes will get filled with station catering to that group at some point. That could be on an HD channel as well.

Simulcasts are generally a ploy to get a few more listeners. In the ratings you can combine the listeners from both signals for your total rating. In Houston, one competitor took on a long term leader in the format by doing their format on 2 FM signals. Today the long time leader is gone.

 

[DJ_Perry]

For example, why does Phoenix needs FOUR top 40 stations playing the same thing? I understand Kiss 104.7, but why you also have to have Hot 97.5 AND 103.9, as well as Live 101.5?

Actually Hot 97.5 / 103.9 is not Top 40, but rather Hot AC. The difference? Very little these days, which goes back to my comment earlier that everybody plays the same thing. Even KEZ being plain AC, is sounding like Mix 96.9 and Hot, with the Top 40 replacing Phil Collins and Celine Dion. Then you have 88.7 which WAS doing something different for a while, but now sounds like a combo of them all (Kiss, Kool, Mountain, Power, Live). To make matters worse, you have 2 classic urban stations that now include currents. Even KOOL started borrowing titles from The Mountain....it's all a mess!

As far as 97.5/103.9, why do you need a simulcast of the same thing?

They were once separate stations, separate companies, but both playing nearly the same exact playlist. So they merged with the idea that their combined shares would beat 96.9. That never happened since the 2-3 years it occurred. Based on their history, they would have been better off left alone.

 

[davideduardo]

Actually Hot 97.5 / 103.9 is not Top 40, but rather Hot AC. The difference? Very little these days, which goes back to my comment earlier that everybody plays the same thing. Even KEZ being plain AC, is sounding like Mix 96.9 and Hot, with the Top 40 replacing Phil Collins and Celine Dion. Then you have 88.7 which WAS doing something different for a while, but now sounds like a combo of them all (Kiss, Kool, Mountain, Power, Live). To make matters worse, you have 2 classic urban stations that now include currents. Even KOOL started borrowing titles from The Mountain....it's all a mess!

The difference is in what they each do not play. Rather than looking at overlap, you have to look at the songs each format excludes that the others play.

When you do that, you see the age and even ethnicity differences between the stations.

They were once separate stations, separate companies, but both playing nearly the same exact playlist. So they merged with the idea that their combined shares would beat 96.9.

They did not "merge". Riviera bought Trumper, the owner of KMVA. There was an option whereby at closing the owners of Trumper could take payment in the form of 28% of Riviera stock.

That never happened since the 2-3 years it occurred. Based on their history, they would have been better off left alone.

Not really. The coverage maps do not overlap. KZON is at 400' down near Chandler, and KMVA is a rimshot from Yavapai County. Neither has a good signal in the zone between downtown and Glendale

 

[davideduardo]

For example, why does Phoenix needs FOUR top 40 stations playing the same thing? I understand Kiss 104.7, but why you also have to have Hot 97.5 AND 103.9, as well as Live 101.5? There isn't a large enough pie in the market.

There is a big enough pie for two CHRs and two Hot AC stations. In Hot AC, KMXP is the leader, and is the 4th or 5th highest biller in a 62 station market. Hot uses two frequencies to cover two ends of the market (SE and NW, but misses everything from downtown to Peoria with a useful indoor signal). Hot bills less because it has deficient coverage.

But the point is that there are only two CHRs and two Hot AC stations. They are different formats and have different demos.

Don't you think it would be more effective for the latter stations to fill a format hole, rather than duke it out for a certain percentage of listeners?

Only if there is a hole capable of getting over a 2 share 12+ where the 18-54 part is strong in some area.

As far as 97.5/103.9, why do you need a simulcast of the same thing?

As mentioned, the 65 dbu signals of the two do not even overlap. They each cover a part of the market, and even combined miss a good piece of it.

Can't one of the frequencies be flipped to fill another format hole, maybe smooth/urban AC? That market isn't being served in the valley.

With Urban AC (with one odd exception) being essentially an African-American only format, there is not enough population to sustain it. The market is 5.4% Black and does not apparently qualify of Nielsen DST, so the numbers would be wobbly and probably even lower due to that issue.

Lastly, why TWO country stations in Phoenix?

Because they each make big, big money. Both are in the top 7 billing stations, and both have coexisted for years with big success.

 

[DJ_Perry]

The difference is in what they each do not play.

C'mon, Pretty minor. The average perception is they all sound similar

They did not "merge". Riviera bought Trumper, the owner of KMVA.

However you want to describe it, LOL, they are the same product times 2! Geez

KZON is at 400' down near Chandler, and KMVA is a rimshot from Yavapai County.

Is that what 103.9 is now? KZON? I thought the call letters were just parked. Oh wait, is that the wrong terminology too? lol

They did infact have better numbers on their own (if you were to combine the 2 from prior, and compare to recently)

 

[TheBigA]

To make matters worse, you have 2 classic urban stations that now include currents. Even KOOL started borrowing titles from The Mountain....it's all a mess!

Maybe to you. Have you ever looked into someone else's personal playlist? It's a mess. Country songs with rap songs with pop songs all mashed together. That's how people listen to music. Last night, I did a personal playlist for myself that pulled everything from Charlie Puth to The Hollies. That's what I felt like listening to. What a mess! Today in radio programming, we're called on to create playlists that will deliver a certain audience. As a musicologist, it's a mess. As a programmer, it works.

 

[DJ_Perry]

Well the ratings sure don't reflect that it works

 

[TheBigA]

Well the ratings sure don't reflect that it works

It does for some stations, not for others. Keep in mind we don't program for the 6+ numbers.

 

[DJ_Perry]

Just curious, does a PD still use that idea when they are winning with 6+ numbers? Do they sit back and say....well it doesn't really count....hmmmm

 

[TheBigA]

Just curious, does a PD still use that idea when they are winning with 6+ numbers? Do they sit back and say....well it doesn't really count....hmmmm

Depends on what the sales people want. That's what the ratings are for.

"Winning with 6+" might work for some advertisers, and not for others.