WABC AND WOR RATINGS AT AN ALL-TIME LOW

[davideduardo]

WOR on 105.1 before labor day weekend ?

Why would CC blow up a format that bills nearly $20 million to help one that bills $15 million?

 

[wadio]

That strikes me as where the industry is today ... a far cry from 1964.

I don't know any industry that's talking about creating a legacy. Do you?

No, this is 2013 dude.

 

[freedy]

How long can Gambling hang on?

 

[TheBigA]

No, this is 2013 dude.

So what's your point? Why should radio operate like it's 1964, while everybody else is operating in the 21st century?

 

[wadio]

Your point appears to pick a fight with me. I'm not sure why. But your methodology is excellent -- reply with a challenge that just misses the point so that the poster will respond out of anger and frustration.

Wikipedia defines a "troll" as, "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

I've seen you do this to other posters as well. Shifting the focus to slightly "off topic" seems to be your modus operandi, and you do it with great skill, Sir.

 

[TheBigA]

Your point appears to pick a fight with me.

Huh? Not at all. You made a statement, and I'm questioning it. Very simple basic element of discussion. No name calling or attacks. Absolutely nothing inflamatory. Just questioning. You prefer not to answer? Fine. Case closed. I'll move on.

 

[FredLeonard]

No, this is 2013 dude.

So what's your point? Why should radio operate like it's 1964, while everybody else is operating in the 21st century?

Maybe because radio operated better in 1964. It had much more of an audience. It was relevant - even important - to that audience. And it made money. The problems with radio lie not with new media but with radio's unwillingness and inability to compete with new media - and to compete IN new media.

Yes, you can find instances when radio has done all that. Not often enough or well enough. Radio survived television 60 years ago but it didn't do what it should have done 10 years ago, or 20.

By the standards of 1964, both WOR and WABC were class acts (and money machines). By the (far lower) standards of today, they are not.

 

[wadio]

Your point appears to pick a fight with me.

Huh? Not at all. You made a statement, and I'm questioning it. Very simple basic element of discussion. No name calling or attacks. Absolutely nothing inflamatory. Just questioning. You prefer not to answer? Fine. Case closed. I'll move on.

Fine with me.

 

[TheBigA]

Maybe because radio operated better in 1964. It had much more of an audience.

And had a whole lot less competition.

The problems with radio lie not with new media but with radio's unwillingness and inability to compete with new media - and to compete IN new media.

I don't see how you can say that. The major radio companies are all heavily invested in new media. The problem is that even the companies that specialize in new media, and are successful, like Pandora, are losing money. The deck is stacked against media (new or old) by the number of competitors and the resulting drop in advertising rates.

By the standards of 1964, both WOR and WABC were class acts (and money machines). By the (far lower) standards of today, they are not.

I think you could say the same of most AM radio stations. Their time was over 25 years ago, and they've been living on fumes ever since.

 

[OC3]

Both these stations will NEVER see the numbers they did in their past and a lot of that has to do with the market and how things have changed. I remember back in the music days when 12 year olds and 60 year olds listened to WABC. That doesn't happen any more. Back then we only had 7 TV stations in NY too. Now there are hundreds of ways to watch video, listen to music, get the news and interact with others. The game has so changed and the rules are all different! More media = smaller numbers for each = much more competition.

 

[FredLeonard]

Fewer listeners. Less demographic breadth.

The industry and it's apologists keep saying it's not their fault.

It is.

The industry did not compete successfully. The bean counters took over. The industry kept looking for ways to save money (and buy more stations). Programmers programmed for narrower audiences - not broader. Stations drove away listeners.

Today 60 year olds listen to WABC and the air talent acts like 12 year olds and talks politics at the level of 12 year olds.

 

[TheBigA]

The industry did not compete successfully. The bean counters took over. The industry kept looking for ways to save money (and buy more stations). Programmers programmed for narrower audiences - not broader. Stations drove away listeners.

I don't think you can extrapolate that to an "industry" thing. Certainly not with regards to WABC vs WOR. The biggest problem with WOR isn't that it drive listeners away, but it stuck with an aging demo that ultimately PASSED away. At WABC, they focused on their core, which was popular national talk show hosts. They determined that's what their listeners wanted. They responded to their listeners, they didn't drive them away. AM radio is ceasing to attract listeners, regardless of the programming.

 

[Ejxit]

WOR = World's Oldest Radio
[/quote]

One step above WWRL - after that your dead - LOL

 

[FredLeonard]

The industry did not compete successfully. The bean counters took over. The industry kept looking for ways to save money (and buy more stations). Programmers programmed for narrower audiences - not broader. Stations drove away listeners.

I don't think you can extrapolate that to an "industry" thing. Certainly not with regards to WABC vs WOR. The biggest problem with WOR isn't that it drive listeners away, but it stuck with an aging demo that ultimately PASSED away. At WABC, they focused on their core, which was popular national talk show hosts. They determined that's what their listeners wanted. They responded to their listeners, they didn't drive them away. AM radio is ceasing to attract listeners, regardless of the programming.

I'll agree. Radio - especially AM radio - can hold an audience; it can't create one. What WABC has been doing is giving the same old, same old listeners more of the same. It's like somebody with an old clunker who decides to nurse it along and keep driving it until it breaks down completely.

It's debatable whether WABC really responded to listeners or to the right-wing predilections of Boyce and Mainelli. In any case, some listeners have gotten tired of the same old, unending, unvarying diet of partisan rants and insults. Some have died off. Most have aged out of any demographic segment attractive to advertisers. The clunker is being driven into the ground. The choir the syndicated hosts preach to is getting smaller (and there's nobody coming in to the fill the pews).

 

[wadio]

I think talk stations ARE driving listeners away. People tune into talk radio to eavesdrop on a conversation -- it's the virtual equivalent of getting together with friends. A normal conversation will usually work its way toward things in the news, so each day there's something fresh to talk about.

But let's say you met every day for lunch with a few friends but, over time, the conversation became dominated by Rush Limbaugh yelling about nothing but Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. Or Mark Levin kvetching about how the world is deteriorating. Or Rita Cosby yammering and giggling uncontrollably like that really annoying loudmouth at a bar during happy hour. Same thing, day after day. Eventually the negativity and the tone of the conversation would drive you to stay home. Radio is no different.

Except with radio, listeners do develop habits. A fan of, let's say Rush or Imus, will hang in way past the point when the show ceased to be fun and entertaining.

 

[TheBigA]

I think talk stations ARE driving listeners away.

How can you drive away listeners who aren't there? People who tune in to WABC know what they're going to get. They're tuning in specifically to hear the personalities who are there. Not for some generic conversation from some generic host. Those days are gone. If people want to get together with friends, they do it. It's very easy. That's not what talk radio is about.

Yes, I understand it's too bad that talk radio has become a one-trick-pony, beating the same dead horse. Too bad. It was much better when Larry King was interviewing interesting people and taking calls. But those days are gone. Those kind of live interview shows are bad in the PPM world. In fact, if you study PPM, live interviews drive listeners away. Because people tune in expecting to hear one thing, and get a conversation, which is not what they want.

 

[FredLeonard]

I think talk stations ARE driving listeners away.

How can you drive away listeners who aren't there? People who tune in to WABC know what they're going to get. They're tuning in specifically to hear the personalities who are there. Not for some generic conversation from some generic host. Those days are gone. If people want to get together with friends, they do it. It's very easy. That's not what talk radio is about.

Yes, I understand it's too bad that talk radio has become a one-trick-pony, beating the same dead horse. Too bad. It was much better when Larry King was interviewing interesting people and taking calls. But those days are gone. Those kind of live interview shows are bad in the PPM world. In fact, if you study PPM, live interviews drive listeners away. Because people tune in expecting to hear one thing, and get a conversation, which is not what they want.

Maybe the past tense would have been more accurate. When WABC went to hard line, party line all right wing talk, all the time they did drive away listeners. Probably for a time the audience continued to erode as people got tired of what they were hearing constantly. But, yes, now they are probably down to hard core of listeners who are only driven away by hearses.

 

[TheBigA]

Maybe the past tense would have been more accurate. When WABC went to hard line, party line all right wing talk, all the time they did drive away listeners.

This was happening at a time when talk radio ratings around the country were increasing. So the move apparently attracted more listeners than it drove away. A lot of radio stations did the same thing for the same reason. Now it's going to be tough to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

 

[barman]

Contributing to the demise of AM radio in general are the growing numbers of lamp dimmers, computers, halogen igniters, switch-mode power supplies, and general time domain sharp-edged, wide-spectrum interference products during the overall move to digital since the 1970s. The buzz has gotten worse and worse, and people have abandoned the band.

 

[KeithE4]

Contributing to the demise of AM radio in general are the growing numbers of lamp dimmers, computers, halogen igniters, switch-mode power supplies, and general time domain sharp-edged, wide-spectrum interference products during the overall move to digital since the 1970s. The buzz has gotten worse and worse, and people have abandoned the band.

Let's put this old-wives tale to rest. People started abandoning the AM band 45 years ago, before all this stuff became prevalent. The beginning of rock stations on the FM band in the late '60s was the reason the AM band lost its dominance.

The noise-making electronics certainly don't help matters, but they are not the root cause of the problem. We've had noise messing up AM radio since Day One - lightning crashes, fluorescent lights, vacuum cleaners & other motorized appliances, and TV horizontal sweep circuits were problems long before the first light dimmer was installed. FM was invented to address these exact problems.