• 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

WABC AND WOR RATINGS AT AN ALL-TIME LOW

qwerty809 said:
You missed my point which is that WABC hosts are not discussing issues concerning new yorkers, that's why their ratings is where it is.
Click to expand...

The stations that strictly focus on issues strictly concerning New Yorkers are getting LOWER ratings than WABC. The main attraction for WABC isn't the issues, but the hosts. If they replaced those popular hosts with lesser known people who talked about local issues, the numbers would be even lower.
 
qwerty809 said:
I do believe should WABC go all local in the morning-mid morning-afternoon (around Rush) they would double their cume and climb back to a 4.5 share (they had in the summer of 2004)
Click to expand...

2004 was diary territory. You are not going to see that kind of thing in 2013 and you will not see it in PPM.
 
@ThebigA... Lesser know to whom? Is Imus or Levin more known than Run Kuby or Steve Malzberg to the average NY metro listener?! The answer is No! And when you'll have them do a show NY style not a Rush rewind, they will get better ratings.
 
qwerty809 said:
@ThebigA... Lesser know to whom? Is Imus or Levin more known than Run Kuby or Steve Malzberg to the average NY metro listener?! The answer is No! And when you'll have them do a show NY style not a Rush rewind, they will get better ratings.
Click to expand...

You're assuming they would hire Kuby or Malzberg. I have no reason to believe they'd do that. For the .2 share extra is gets them, it's simply not worth the money. This station, regardless of what it does, will never get the ratings it once did. And the demos it now attracts will not pay for expensive local talent.
 
I assume so based on the results in other big radio markets like LA (KFI) Chicago has two stations - WLS, WGN - devoting more to local talk. Why is NY diff ?
 
qwerty809 said:
I assume so based on the results in other big radio markets like LA (KFI) Chicago has two stations - WLS, WGN - devoting more to local talk. Why is NY diff ?
Click to expand...

Part of it is heritage. Those who've been doing local talk for a while will continue. But WABC got out of it a while ago. It costs too much to rebuild from the ground up.

But another part is all the competition. There's an incredible local sports talk station that sucks up a lot of the listenership. Two all news stations that steal away any potential for focusing on local news. And a real lack of a centralized community in NYC. Local talk works better on smaller stations in LI, Westchester, and NJ. The big signal needs to paint with a much broader brush, and local issues get lost. Take a look at 710. They do local talk in morning and afternoon drive. How's that working out for them?
 
qwerty809 said:
I assume so based on the results in other big radio markets like LA (KFI) Chicago has two stations - WLS, WGN - devoting more to local talk. Why is NY diff ?
Click to expand...

In Chicago, WLS bills less than a quarter of what all-news WBBM does. WGN, while still doing OK in billing, has revenue that is nearly half of the early 2000's level... and the station is hovering around 20th in 25-54.

With that in mind, where is the gain in trying to vastly improve WABC?
 
Ratings vrs billing. Companies like Clear Channel and Cumulus care more about billing and realize that bad programing often makes money. The most profit often is made with slock and money talks. Don't expect quality from a company that owns 1000 radio stations. Welcome to 2013.....
 
OC3 said:
Ratings vrs billing. Companies like Clear Channel and Cumulus care more about billing and realize that bad programing often makes money. The most profit often is made with slock and money talks. Don't expect quality from a company that owns 1000 radio stations. Welcome to 2013.....
Click to expand...

What world do you live in? ALL companies and ALL stations care about billing first and foremost. Always has been that way---always will be.
 
I live in the real world which is much more than most of the posters here. What's new is that ALL these companies care about is BILLING.
 
ALL companies and ALL stations care about billing first and foremost. Always has been that way---always will be.
Click to expand...
If by "always" you mean since the consultants and the bean counters took over in the 1970's I'd say you're right. First and foremost? OK, but to what degree.

There was a time when pride, creativity and job satisfaction meant something too -- if a job was worth doing it was worth doing right -- a time when people in positions of power actually thought about the legacy they'd leave behind as well as the bottom line.

That legacy is what lives on in the memories of the posters here today. I wonder what will be left to discuss in another decade or two. "Yeah, I remember when the CEO of WXYZ earned a 10 million dollar severance package, Man, those were the days!"
 
OC3 said:
They answer to Wall St and the bankers and that's all.
Click to expand...

Cumulus is mostly owned by institutional & mutual fund investors. This is the norm for publicly-traded companies (although the percentages vary) these days. In Cumulus' case, the figure is 90%, divided among many companies.

Clear Channel is mostly private, with some stock traded on the OTC market, and is $billions in debt.

Business executives and managers do what the owners tell them to do. Cumulus' owners want to take their shares of the profits in cash for their clients (which could be you and me, if we invest with them). I don't know how CC stays in business with that much debt.
 
OC3 said:
I live in the real world which is much more than most of the posters here. What's new is that ALL these companies care about is BILLING.
Click to expand...

When I put my first station on the air in 1964...

... all I cared about was making a profit.

Without a profit, it did not matter that I'd just launched the market's first Top 40 station. Without a profit, it did not matter that I was paying the best talent salaries in the market. Without profit, it did not matter that I had the best equipped station in the country. Without a profit, it did not matter that in some hours of the day (evenings) I had over a 50 share in a 42 station market.

... because without profits, I could not stay on the air and continue to do and sustain such things.

That was 49 years ago. It's not new.
 
When I put my first station on the air in 1964...

... all I cared about was making a profit.
Click to expand...

You were ahead of your time. That's why you've prevailed in the industry (such as it is today.)
 
wadio said:
When I put my first station on the air in 1964...

... all I cared about was making a profit.
Click to expand...

You were ahead of your time. That's why you've prevailed in the industry (such as it is today.)
Click to expand...

It was also why I could, shortly after, put on the first FM for a thousand miles around, and run it with no ad sales (on purpose) for a year to encourage purchase of FM radios.

But profits also were why my first employer in radio had a supplies policy so rigid and strict that we had to bring our own toilet paper.

Some owners used profits for personal gain, some used them to improve the business as well.

My point is that the profit motive has always existed. Some owners were good, some were bad. And that goes back to when insurance companies and radio set manufacturers put some of the first stations on the air in the early 20's.
 
Some owners used profits for personal gain, some used them to improve the business as well.
Click to expand...

And that's my point. Nothing wrong with making money ... lots of it ... but there's also more to life. Making money, creating something worthwhile, finding job satisfaction and having a bit of fun along the way aren't mutually exclusive. When the focus is money alone there'll be no lasting legacy. That strikes me as where the industry is today ... a far cry from 1964.

Cheers!
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom