cspotrun said:
hey, DG you mention "antiquated advertising revenue model" for commercial radio, once again let me introduce you to CAPITALISM- we do THAT, outside of the ivory halls of College radio- as far as going to a "Listener supported" business model like your situation- let me remind you that XM and satilite radio is now bankrupt!
I messed up the quotes in my last post- apologies for that.
XM & Sirius is not a listener-supported model. It is a subscription model propped-up with more traditional advertising as well. Their bankruptcy was due to expansion of costs without ANY additional income in revenue. Many new media technologies go through such a troubled start- satellite TV is but one example.
Satellite radio is expensive. Forget the transmitter/tower of traditional terrestrial radio, we're talking satellites here. Any guesses as to what ONE satellite costs, much less the cost to launch and operate it? Last I checked, XM used 2 in the D2D operations, and Sirius used 3. They both also have spares in place. That kind of hardware ain't cheap.
Add to that misery the fact that their original subscription-based model has yet to achieve even the most insane predictions of acceptance and implementation. They both directed their early marketing efforts at people in cars with very long commute times. They spent most of their marketing capital getting Detroit to put the radios in new cars as a means to introduce new subscriptions. We see how well that worked. Further add that they introduced their services right before 9/11, and then everything tanked.
As if THAT wasn't enough, both XM and Sirius decided to try the old "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" axiom, then began buying up as many personalities and talent they could from terrestrial radio. Anyone remember Howard Stern? Still competing against each other, XM & Sirius then went after major sports and other programming fare that was traditionally very profitable for terrestrial radio networks, but very expensive to procure: MLB, NFL, NASCAR, NHL, NBA, etc, etc. All of which caused BILLIONS of dollars of expense, while hardly adding anything to the number of subscriptions.
Bottom line with XM & Sirius, their MO to stop the massive bleeding of monetary reserves was to put more leeches on the patient. They are bankrupt because their expenses were, and continue to be, GREATER than their revenue, whether it was derived from subscriptions or advertising or whatever.
Their ultimate demise has NOTHING to do with a lack of "listener-support".
people EXPECT radio to be FREE and the only way is through advertising...
Some people might expect radio to be free, but the last part of your statement is patently false.
Non-comm radio's success is clearly proof that you are wrong. Non-comm formats are quite diverse and consistently rank high, even in the top markets. KUT does gangbuster business in Austin. So too KUHF in Houston.
"Through advertising" is most certainly NOT the only way.
and you've yet to deny that you are also getting some Government money to support your station along with listener support.
I don't believe I have denied receiving any local or federal grants. Can you show me where I have?
As I said before, and here I go saying it again, ANY station can apply and qualify for grants. Why doesn't your station apply for them?
antiquated ratings system?(you seem to like it, you keep telling us how great you're doing in the ratings) no one likes the ratings, ESPECIALLY if they're LOSING. you can't tell me that Z, or anyone else wouldn't be happier with a 13.0 share than a 3 share. tell me it wouldn't matter then.
I could care less about ratings. As Blaster69 has already eloquently stated, there are lots of problems with how Arbitron "gets the numbers". Early numbers from the PPMs has tended to verify some of Arbitron's critics- the methodology is far from perfect, and maybe worse, far from what even Arbitron claims they are.
Yes, the system is antiquated. It's the 21st Century already and we're still using diaries? Please.
I'll also ask again, if KOHM is doing better than other stations in this market ratings-wise, what does that mean? Does it mean Arbitron is wrong? Does it mean that KOHM is actually doing something better than those other stations? Is it just a fluke? Does it mean that commercial radio really sucks worse in Lubbock, TX than you might think? (Go ahead, take a guess which one I think it is).
Sounds like your station may not be doing so well in the ratings game. I'll argue that it is always about programming. If the programming sucks, and by that I mean sucks from the listeners perspective, than there is very little you as a sales rep can do about it. Good programming begets an audience which begets ratings which eventually begets advertisers. Once more, it isn't rocket surgery.
in sales, if you haven't got ratings, its best not to talk about it, find another way to get them to buy, its a damn good salesman who can pull that off.
And I know a few who can and do. Good ratings is only ONE of many strengths that a station can use to sell. If all you have to sell is ratings, and they're not so hot, than that is indeed a problem.
Back when Lew Dee & Diana were on 98Kool, they didn't subscribe to the Arbitron numbers nor did they need to. But they knew they had a good audience when the Rush Limbaugh program was on. That's more proof to me that it's all about the programming.
