WABC and WLS

[jrls4444]

Does it bother anyone here that WABC airs mostly syndicated shows on the weekdays, with brokered and paid programming on the weekends? Same for WLS. I'm not saying that it necessarily bothers me, just wondering what you thought.

 

[FredLeonard]

Does it bother anyone here that WABC airs mostly syndicated shows on the weekdays, with brokered and paid programming on the weekends? Same for WLS. I'm not saying that it necessarily bothers me, just wondering what you thought.

A little late to start worrying. They've been doing this for almost 20 years. Just shows the sorry state of radio both as a business and as a medium.

 

[PirateJohnny]

...Just shows the sorry state of radio both as a business and as a medium.

I blame it on advertisers. My comments are aimed more at TV (my current profession). Advertisers today only want maximum audience. In the "golden era" advertisers were concerned about the programming they were connected with. That doesn't seem to be the case today. At the TV station where I work, Jerry Springer and Maury Povich are the highest rated programs. Today broadcasters (both TV and radio) just air whatever brings in the most revenue. That's why there are so many 30 minute infomercials even though they typically show up with ratings and shares of 0.

 

[TheBigA]

Just shows the sorry state of radio both as a business and as a medium.

Yet TV and cable do the exact same thing, and no one seems to think they're in trouble.

I think what it shows is the state of the audience, because even with all that syndicated programming, WABC is the #1 talk station in NYC, and WLS pulls in respectable numbers, close to stations that spend a whole lot more on content.

In answer to the OP, it doesn't bother me because I don't listen. Then again, if they had live & local talent, I wouldn't listen either.

 

[qwerty809]

Does it bother anyone here that WABC airs mostly syndicated shows on the weekdays, with brokered and paid programming on the weekends? Same for WLS. I'm not saying that it necessarily bothers me, just wondering what you thought.

A little late to start worrying. They've been doing this for almost 20 years. Just shows the sorry state of radio both as a business and as a medium.

20 years? No way. ABC had a good local morning show Curtis&Kuby before Cumulus took over. The Buzz was a local evening show with Malzberg And Bay.

WLS does have still a local show in the afternoon.

 

[michael hagerty]

...Just shows the sorry state of radio both as a business and as a medium.

I blame it on advertisers. My comments are aimed more at TV (my current profession). Advertisers today only want maximum audience. In the "golden era" advertisers were concerned about the programming they were connected with. That doesn't seem to be the case today. At the TV station where I work, Jerry Springer and Maury Povich are the highest rated programs. Today broadcasters (both TV and radio) just air whatever brings in the most revenue. That's why there are so many 30 minute infomercials even though they typically show up with ratings and shares of 0.

Let's remember that, in the Golden Age, those advertisers, who then were long-term sponsors of the shows, had bright ideas like dumping Desi Arnaz from "I Love Lucy" (fortunately, Lucy had an ally in Bill Paley and they both told the sponsor to take a long walk off a short pier). But the number of shows meddling sponsors fouled up is too high to count.

And I'm not at all sure how you can blame today's situation on advertisers. Are you suggesting that they should not buy time on the most popular shows, and thus reduce the number of people who see their message? Not gonna happen.

If you work in TV, you know that most infos are "per response" buys. No one expects a rating or share. If the phone rings three times in the half-hour and those calls convert to sales, they've usually covered the time buy and maybe made some money. Multiply that by x number of stations in x number of markets x times a week and it adds up to real money. Meantime, station GMs can have their sales people chasing the remaining big money accounts instead of trying to clear 14 minutes an hour in weekend afternoons for 25 bucks a pop.

 

[FredLeonard]

Yet TV and cable do the exact same thing, and no one seems to think they're in trouble.

I think what it shows is the state of the audience, because even with all that syndicated programming, WABC is the #1 talk station in NYC, and WLS pulls in respectable numbers, close to stations that spend a whole lot more on content.

We've just heard the industry line. What, me worry?

Denial: A river in Egypt

Terrestrial TV and the networks which serve it are in trouble. The disease hasn't progressed as far but all the symptoms are there.

Right, blame the audience. People listen to radio less often and for less time. At any given moment, fewer people are listening. Number one in a declining format sets the bar pretty low. It's like say the stern of the Titanic is furthest from the water.

 

[TheBigA]

We've just heard the industry line. What, me worry?

I think most people in the industry have been discussing the sad state of the advertising marketplace for the past five years. It's front & center at the NAB, taking place this week in Vegas. You can't invest in content when there's no ad money. You can worry about it if you want, but that doesn't get anything done.

Right, blame the audience. People listen to radio less often and for less time. At any given moment, fewer people are listening.

And what are they listening to? Devices that invest far less in content creation than radio. There is no correlation between quality and audience, or investment and audience. They like what they like. If that means syndicated shows, then that's what it means. If that means reality shows, then that's what it means. What we're seeing in study after study is that the audience likes radio, just not the device.

 

[FredLeonard]

Device and content are two different things, like product and packaging ... or better yet, product and distribution. The industry keeps insisting that rusty towers terrestrial radio is the product. And that's how they hobble themselves.

The other error is they want to wait for ad money to come in before investing money in content. Wrong. First you build it; then they come. That's why putting money into content is called an "investment."

 

[TheBigA]

The industry keeps insisting that rusty towers terrestrial radio is the product. And that's how they hobble themselves.

Really? Then why are they all investing so much in digital and mobile? Maybe you can cite a source.

The other error is they want to wait for ad money to come in before investing money in content. Wrong. First you build it; then they come. That's why putting money into content is called an "investment."

I don't know who you work for, but at my place, content comes before advertising. We spend lots knowing that we first have to deliver ratings BEFORE we can go to an advertiser. No advertiser will take us at our word before seeing hard numbers, regardless of our track record.

The fact is that WLS and WABC could invest millions in content, and they'd end up with about the same numbers. Cumulus is a company that will spend money if there's a chance on some return. They spent a ton investing in an all live & local news staff in Atlanta, hiring some very experienced people. Right now they've got a 2 share. That number probably isn't easy to sell. I'm glad I'm not selling it.

 

[MC]

tape decks? gone, phonograph gone for the most part, tubes gone, desktops? a few more years in the home,

those towers? I do not see much money in them in the long term. except for the land value

 

[FredLeonard]

The industry keeps insisting that rusty towers terrestrial radio is the product. And that's how they hobble themselves.

Really? Then why are they all investing so much in digital and mobile? Maybe you can cite a source.

The other error is they want to wait for ad money to come in before investing money in content. Wrong. First you build it; then they come. That's why putting money into content is called an "investment."

I don't know who you work for, but at my place, content comes before advertising. We spend lots knowing that we first have to deliver ratings BEFORE we can go to an advertiser. No advertiser will take us at our word before seeing hard numbers, regardless of our track record.

The fact is that WLS and WABC could invest millions in content, and they'd end up with about the same numbers. Cumulus is a company that will spend money if there's a chance on some return. They spent a ton investing in an all live & local news staff in Atlanta, hiring some very experienced people. Right now they've got a 2 share. That number probably isn't easy to sell. I'm glad I'm not selling it.

You are the one who said, "You can't invest in content when there's no ad money."

Then you said, "We spend lots knowing that we first have to deliver ratings BEFORE we can go to an advertiser."

Please make up your mind.

 

[TheBigA]

You are the one who said, "You can't invest in content when there's no ad money."

Then you said, "We spend lots knowing that we first have to deliver ratings BEFORE we can go to an advertiser."

Please make up your mind.

That's what happens when you take my comments out of context. One refers to existing content, like WABC. The other refers to creating new content, like NASH for example. Cumulus has determined that there's only so much ad money they're going to make from WABC. They could invest more money, hire more local staff, but it won't result in more money. On the other hand, with NASH, they're building something from scratch, determining what the potential is, and making an investment in that content without knowing how much money it will make.

 

[PirateJohnny]

...Just shows the sorry state of radio both as a business and as a medium.

I blame it on advertisers. My comments are aimed more at TV (my current profession). Advertisers today only want maximum audience. In the "golden era" advertisers were concerned about the programming they were connected with. That doesn't seem to be the case today. At the TV station where I work, Jerry Springer and Maury Povich are the highest rated programs. Today broadcasters (both TV and radio) just air whatever brings in the most revenue. That's why there are so many 30 minute infomercials even though they typically show up with ratings and shares of 0.

Let's remember that, in the Golden Age, those advertisers, who then were long-term sponsors of the shows, had bright ideas like dumping Desi Arnaz from "I Love Lucy" (fortunately, Lucy had an ally in Bill Paley and they both told the sponsor to take a long walk off a short pier). But the number of shows meddling sponsors fouled up is too high to count.

And I'm not at all sure how you can blame today's situation on advertisers. Are you suggesting that they should not buy time on the most popular shows, and thus reduce the number of people who see their message? Not gonna happen.

If you work in TV, you know that most infos are "per response" buys. No one expects a rating or share. If the phone rings three times in the half-hour and those calls convert to sales, they've usually covered the time buy and maybe made some money. Multiply that by x number of stations in x number of markets x times a week and it adds up to real money. Meantime, station GMs can have their sales people chasing the remaining big money accounts instead of trying to clear 14 minutes an hour in weekend afternoons for 25 bucks a pop.

Over the years I've read and heard interviews about what sponsors wanted to "sponsor". My interpretation is that nobody would have bought time during Springer or Maury in the 60s/early 70s, therefore the programs would not be on the air at all.

Yes, I know all about "per response" infomercials. I just think it's a sad state of affairs that this happens. A gripe I have is that a viewer who works odd hours can't watch programs in their first-run time slot. This viewer, at 2AM, turns on the network that airs his/her favorite programs when he/she gets home from work and doesn't find a second airing from the previous night because the informercials are on instead. I've been in that position before and I did not watch any programming after midnight. When it was possible I watched a VHS from the previous night, but if my TV was metered it would not have counted as a view in prime-time or at 2AM.

 

[michael hagerty]

...Just shows the sorry state of radio both as a business and as a medium.

I blame it on advertisers. My comments are aimed more at TV (my current profession). Advertisers today only want maximum audience. In the "golden era" advertisers were concerned about the programming they were connected with. That doesn't seem to be the case today. At the TV station where I work, Jerry Springer and Maury Povich are the highest rated programs. Today broadcasters (both TV and radio) just air whatever brings in the most revenue. That's why there are so many 30 minute infomercials even though they typically show up with ratings and shares of 0.

Let's remember that, in the Golden Age, those advertisers, who then were long-term sponsors of the shows, had bright ideas like dumping Desi Arnaz from "I Love Lucy" (fortunately, Lucy had an ally in Bill Paley and they both told the sponsor to take a long walk off a short pier). But the number of shows meddling sponsors fouled up is too high to count.

And I'm not at all sure how you can blame today's situation on advertisers. Are you suggesting that they should not buy time on the most popular shows, and thus reduce the number of people who see their message? Not gonna happen.

If you work in TV, you know that most infos are "per response" buys. No one expects a rating or share. If the phone rings three times in the half-hour and those calls convert to sales, they've usually covered the time buy and maybe made some money. Multiply that by x number of stations in x number of markets x times a week and it adds up to real money. Meantime, station GMs can have their sales people chasing the remaining big money accounts instead of trying to clear 14 minutes an hour in weekend afternoons for 25 bucks a pop.

Over the years I've read and heard interviews about what sponsors wanted to "sponsor". My interpretation is that nobody would have bought time during Springer or Maury in the 60s/early 70s, therefore the programs would not be on the air at all.

Yes, I know all about "per response" infomercials. I just think it's a sad state of affairs that this happens. A gripe I have is that a viewer who works odd hours can't watch programs in their first-run time slot. This viewer, at 2AM, turns on the network that airs his/her favorite programs when he/she gets home from work and doesn't find a second airing from the previous night because the informercials are on instead. I've been in that position before and I did not watch any programming after midnight. When it was possible I watched a VHS from the previous night, but if my TV was metered it would not have counted as a view in prime-time or at 2AM.

By the 60s and 70s, if it got numbers in the demo, ad dollars would follow. Full sponsorships were dead and gone by '65 except for Lawrence Welk and old-line game shows like What's My Line and To Tell The Truth.

In the 60s and 70s, people looked at Laugh-In and All In The Family and said "Those would never have gotten sponsors in the early 50s."

Society changes. Rarely for the better. Jerry and Maury have been rating and revenue machines (in middays, where a 1 in a demo is a big deal) for the better part of 20 years.

As for the overnight infomercial, DVRs are now as common as VHS machines were (and more people know how to program them to record). Neilsen now measures DVR viewing within 7 days of the original airing.

 

[ProducerGuy]

The syndicated shows are based from WABC, even if Rush is physically in Florida and Levin is physically in Virginia.

 

[FredLeonard]

There has been a bit of a come-back for "sponsored" shows. It's not like the old days. For example, the new Hawaii Five-O is sponsored by Chevrolet. They get a sponsorship credit at the beginning and they own the first commercial break. And their cars are featured in the show. But other advertisers' spots are also seen.

Originally, advertisers owned the shows. They bought the time (like brokered time today), rented studio facilities from the network, hired the talent and the ad agency produced the show. The network should provided time and facilities. Since advertisers owned the time, networks could not program or counter-program shows.

Pat Weaver changed that with Today and Tonight, treating shows like a magazine, in which an advertiser buys a page, not the whole book and has nothing to do with content. Ironically, he used to be an ad agency executive who produced shows for his agency. As TV costs rose, advertisers started sharing sponsorships and then just buying spots. They got greater reach - instead of buying one show with the sponsor's name on it they could buy spots in a whole bunch of shows and theoretically reach more people. But they gave up frequency (people would not see the spot as often) and the endorsement value of having their product associated with a character or a personality. Arguably, advertising became more affordable and less effective.

 

[Corky Marlowe]

There has been a bit of a come-back for "sponsored" shows. It's not like the old days. For example, the new Hawaii Five-O is sponsored by Chevrolet. They get a sponsorship credit at the beginning and they own the first commercial break. And their cars are featured in the show. But other advertisers' spots are also seen.

ESPN does some of this on a small scale. Phone calls on Mike & Mike are on the Subway Hotline, and SportsCenter has the Coors Light Cold Hard Facts. (Which are not really facts, but that's another topic for another tread.) I wonder if we'll ever see a return to the days when sponsor logos were plastered all over the set, like on the old game shows.

EDITED: Duh, just thought of the Home Depot logo prominently displayed on College Game Day.

 

[buster2]

This is done by more than just ESPN. Local talk stations have done sponsorships of this kind for some time. I can think of a station in Phoenix that broadcasts from the "Republic Monetary Studios" and has the "Parker & Sons Heating and Refrigeration Weather Center." And that just scratches the surface.

The most old-school placement I hear these days is when Rush Limbaugh starts talking about a political subject and then weaves it into a paid testimonial for the Heritage Foundation. Or, he reads a news story about computer security and it morphs into an ID theft prevention spot. With listeners hip to when spot breaks occur and how long those breaks are, they must be tuning out at those points, so we're going to see and here more of this.