• 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

What's the latest Q105.1 rumor?

T

ticoSD

To spice the board up a bit...

It's been a while since we last heard about Q105.1 supposedly going urban. Are they still looking to go in that direction or go with something else, or even staying where they are? With New York and Chicago recently losing their oldies stations (and those on the Los Angeles board are sounding the death knell for KRTH), is something close to happening here? Wenny? <P ID="signature">______________
"...and the countdown continues until the neanderthals that govern college football do something about their pathetic postseason."--Tim Brando, Sporting News Radio</P>
 
The Q ratings have been staying either steady or ticking up slowly. The station is exceeding revenue budget. Being marketed for the 1st time. This format ain't going anywhere.
 
> The Q ratings have been staying either steady or ticking up
> slowly. The station is exceeding revenue budget. Being
> marketed for the 1st time. This format ain't going anywhere.


The fact that any CC station in the market is "exceeding revenue budget" is amazing, considering the Miller Kaplan info that's been available over the last year or so. Don't want to start antyhing, but,sounded curious to me. Just say you're trying the best ya can.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
"ain't gonna let 'em catch the Midnight Rider..."</P>
 
> > The Q ratings have been staying either steady or ticking
> up
> > slowly. The station is exceeding revenue budget. Being
> > marketed for the 1st time. This format ain't going
> anywhere.
>
>
> The fact that any CC station in the market is "exceeding
> revenue budget" is amazing, considering the Miller Kaplan
> info that's been available over the last year or so. Don't
> want to start antyhing, but,sounded curious to me. Just say
> you're trying the best ya can.
> >
>

Sounds like double-talk to me- the kind you hear from someone trying to justify a poor job performance. " Exceeding Revenue Budget"???? Come on guys, that's lame. Do you ever choke on the smoke when you're blowing it up where the sun don't shine? Any Ops Manager happy with a 100KW station that places a dismal 10th in the book is a lousy, unmotivated, manager. Add a classic rock 100KW (or 80KW depending on who you ask)that's tied with an AM talker and 3 other stations for 7th and it's clear that know-how is in short supply over there. That said I agree you should keep the format. As a matter of fact I believe in this one instance I can speak for the majority of non-CC stations when I say;
Please Clear Channel, keep the same management team in place in Jackson, MS. Keep doing the same old thing with the same old people as you have been. Keep dead formats on the air, don't change with the rest of the world, and whatever you do, don't take away the laughingstock of the market- we derive much pleasure from the antics and the last thing we want at CC Jackson is competent, professional management. After all, they own the primest real estate on the dial
and with leadership they could own this market- and who wants that?
 
> > > The Q ratings have been staying either steady or ticking
>
> > up
> > > slowly. The station is exceeding revenue budget. Being
> > > marketed for the 1st time. This format ain't going
> > anywhere.
> >
> >
> > The fact that any CC station in the market is "exceeding
> > revenue budget" is amazing, considering the Miller Kaplan
> > info that's been available over the last year or so. Don't
>
> > want to start antyhing, but,sounded curious to me. Just
> say
> > you're trying the best ya can.
> > >
> >
>
> Sounds like double-talk to me- the kind you hear from
> someone trying to justify a poor job performance. "
> Exceeding Revenue Budget"???? Come on guys, that's lame. Do
> you ever choke on the smoke when you're blowing it up where
> the sun don't shine? Any Ops Manager happy with a 100KW
> station that places a dismal 10th in the book is a lousy,
> unmotivated, manager. Add a classic rock 100KW (or 80KW
> depending on who you ask)that's tied with an AM talker and 3
> other stations for 7th and it's clear that know-how is in
> short supply over there. That said I agree you should keep
> the format. As a matter of fact I believe in this one
> instance I can speak for the majority of non-CC stations
> when I say;
> Please Clear Channel, keep the same management team in place
> in Jackson, MS. Keep doing the same old thing with the same
> old people as you have been. Keep dead formats on the air,
> don't change with the rest of the world, and whatever you
> do, don't take away the laughingstock of the market- we
> derive much pleasure from the antics and the last thing we
> want at CC Jackson is competent, professional management.
> After all, they own the primest real estate on the dial
> and with leadership they could own this market- and who
> wants that?

Ah, looks like the old message board is getting back to normal.
>
 
I'm not in the market and don't know anything about the stations being discussed. BUT I want to point out ONE tiny thing:

<font color="blue">REVENUE doesn't always bring ratings, and RATINGS don't always bring revenue.</font>

I have seen many stations, falling low in "Arbitron" numbers (very inaccurate science to begin with), that did EXCEED their budget. What the sales people accomplish should NOT depend on where your numbers fall in "Arbitron".

I'm not saying that this is necesarily the case with the station being discussed. BUT for the sake of a healthy conversation, it needs to be said that IT IS POSSIBLE, and it might just be TRUE, dispite what you wish were true.

I've seen too many people come on the message boards and try to say that in order for a station to be profitable it has to be in the "top #" (# being anywhere from 3-10). That is JUST NOT TRUE, and never will be.

Budgets are set by the GM's (and higher) and are executed by the sales people (not the jocks). The jocks have nothing to do with the budget being met but are the FIRST to suffer when they aren't. Good sales people sell the PRODUCT, not the NUMBERS...

oohhh...what a concept. Stop relying on Arbitron as a crutch as to why you can or can't sell, and get out and make strong beneficial relationships with your clients.

Radio Stations need to stop trying so hard to be "number one" just for the sake of being "number one" and focus on helping the businesses that support the station be more successful. All that being number one means is that there is someone trying harder than you (usually whoever is in the "number 2" slot). And sometimes that ends up making a difference in the eyes and ears of the listeners. <P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
why blow up the q anyway?

speaking for myself. i like q 105.1...second best station in jackson..first being jack fm 94.7...two similar formats..one leaning modern. the other leaning older..IMO leave it alone. Jackson has enough urbans..<P ID="signature">______________
deep tracks xm 40 for those who arent single minded</P>
 
Re: why blow up the q anyway?

> speaking for myself. i like q 105.1...second best station in
> jackson..first being jack fm 94.7...two similar formats..one
> leaning modern. the other leaning older..IMO leave it alone.
> Jackson has enough urbans..


> Sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong,cd, but I recall you some time ago on this board saying that you didn't listen to radio stations anymore, and now you have at least two "favorite" stations? Thought you only listened to those hip satellite channels.
 
Re: why blow up the q anyway?

> > speaking for myself. i like q 105.1...second best station
> in
> > jackson..first being jack fm 94.7...two similar
> formats..one
> > leaning modern. the other leaning older..IMO leave it
> alone.
> > Jackson has enough urbans..
>
>
> > Sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong,cd, but I recall you
> some time ago on this board saying that you didn't listen to
> radio stations anymore, and now you have at least two
> "favorite" stations? Thought you only listened to those hip
> satellite channels.
>
i do mostly listen to sat..but still turn on fm to see whats going on..<P ID="signature">______________
deep tracks xm 40 for those who arent single minded</P>
 
Re: why blow up the q anyway?

> speaking for myself. i like q 105.1...second best station in
> jackson..first being jack fm 94.7...two similar formats..one
> leaning modern. the other leaning older..IMO leave it alone.
> Jackson has enough urbans..
>
I like the Q too, Its not perfect, but it kinda reminds me of the old JDX of my youth.
 
Re: why blow up the q anyway?

> > speaking for myself. i like q 105.1...second best station
> in
> > jackson..first being jack fm 94.7...two similar
> formats..one
> > leaning modern. the other leaning older..IMO leave it
> alone.
> > Jackson has enough urbans..
> >
> I like the Q too, Its not perfect, but it kinda reminds me
> of the old JDX of my youth.
>
Yes, memory does tend to fade as the years go by,don't it? Art Reed sounds so much like Burt&Kurt,Bill Tanner,etc.(Let's see, the songs got a thirty-two second intro, so I'll read this card about our website really slow and say "superQ" a couple of times...) JDX never called itself "Jackson's favorite", even though it was the dominant station at the time, and QJQ should be fined for false advertising. Some of the songs are the same, but Q-105 ain't, ol Pat.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom