Whats up with WHAM??

[TheBigA]

What would you know about Buffalo, Michigan?

I'm simply responding to someone from Rochester. To him, if a station isn't #1, then it doesn't matter.

Meanwhile, WHAM is doing just fine, warts and all. People are listening for Lonsberry, not technical goofs. As long as Bob has a pulse, so will WHAM. When he leaves, kaboom.

 

[SirRoxalot]

So, LONSBERRY is the key to WHAM's success. Thanks for the tip, "A". Your local knowledge is amazing.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

And pray tell what happens when the bean-counters at Clear Channel decide that Lonsberry makes too much money and its time to cut more personnel?

Lonsberry is no dummy. Why do you think he's been promoting his FUBO business? That's a cushion in case he does lose his job at WHAM.

No one in the Rochester media, with perhaps the exception of Don Alhart, has a secure future.

As for the subject title: What Happened to WHAM?; the answer is obvious.

1. Clear Channel decimated WHAM's local news operation with the firing of several key people.
2. WBEE and WDKX have established themselves as Rochester's premier radio stations.
3. WYSL has offered an alternative to WHAM's programming.

 

[TheBigA]

1. Clear Channel decimated WHAM's local news operation with the firing of several key people.

They also bought Metro Traffic about a year ago. Metro Traffic came with staff who handle local news and traffic. Metro created a business over 25 years ago by providing local content for radio and TV stations.

 

[SirRoxalot]

1. Clear Channel decimated WHAM's local news operation with the firing of several key people.

They also bought Metro Traffic about a year ago. Metro Traffic came with staff who handle local news and traffic. Metro created a business over 25 years ago by providing local content for radio and TV stations.

And look what they've done to Metro Traffic. "Decimated" would mean only 10% of it was cut. It's WAY more than that, and the quality of the product reflects it. CC can't even seem to get the automation to run right on WHAM. You'd think that the slick suit at the top of their foodchain in Rochester would tune in once in a while, and at least keep enough competent staff to program the automation correctly.

 

[John C]

I do listen to WHAM in the morning and a couple weeks ago the Metro Traffic guy must've forgot what station he was talking to. His report was a bunch of non-Rochester traffic and I can't remember the call letters he used at the end of the report. Honestly, I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often. I bet Chet wishes he still had Barry doing traffic. I imagine he probably misses Beth and Bill too. Such is life in modern radio.

 

[Philip_Airtime]

I have to weigh in on this discussion in regards to Metro Traffic. Even when Metro had an operation in Buffalo, it was no replacement for a station's own news department. At its peak, Metro did a good job at providing traffic information. But its news consisted of ripping off newspapers. At the beginning, you'd see the Metro mic flag at news events. But that didn't last long. So, i don't hold Metro News in high regard. And if that's what WHAM is depending on, I'm sure the quality of WHAM News is not what it once was.

 

[TheBigA]

Clear Channel isn't in the news business. Really, they never were, even when they only owned a handful of stations. Look at their station list, and you won't find an all-news station in the bunch. It's not their thing. They own a syndication company, but they don't offer any news or sports programming. Just talk and music.

 

[Mark Giardina]

How many radio stations do you know that are in the news business today?

WHAM's reputation was built in large part because of its on-air personalities and its news department.

Speaking as a WHAM news alumnus I can answer the question about the quality of news on 1180.

It is not what it once was; noting that it is not the fault of the current news staff. After all a news operation can only do so much with so few bodies ( Sound like Churchill don't I?)

But on a serious note; if Clear Channel doesn't give a damn about local news, and most if not all commercial radio stations in Rochester (that bother to carry news in the first place) depend instead on having TV news anchors, or morning jocks reading from the newspaper, perform such duties, then why should anyone be surprised at the demise (excellent choice of words) of radio news.

 

[TheBigA]

How many radio stations do you know that are in the news business today?

Quite a few...just not many in Rochester or Buffalo. A lot of the public stations have built their current reputations around news, but a lot of that flies below the radar of some folks.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

Buffalo and Rochester are home to two fine news-talk public radio stations. WBFO/AM 970 and WXXI-AM respectively, which offer competitive programming choices to the commercial stations in both markets. If commercial news stations choose to abdicate their roles and responsibilities as news providers, these stations will satisfy the needs of listeners without missing a step.

 

[SirRoxalot]

WHAM's current placement in the top 5 12+ is due to their past reputation for news/talk. Their big signal gets out well. Their slow slide from the top is directly attributable to CC's lack of support for their local product. Compare them with WBEN in Buffalo, which has its own issues with personnel cuts, and you'll see that Entercom is doing a better job of supporting the product, and reaping the revenue rewards.

 

[TheBigA]

WHAM's current placement in the top 5 12+ is due to their past reputation for news/talk. Their big signal gets out well. Their slow slide from the top is directly attributable to CC's lack of support for their local product.

I don't see how it makes a big difference. In both cases, the AM talker is being beaten by country music. The one consistent theme as you look at all of the upstate cities: Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, and Syracuse, is the strength of country music, and the weakening of AM talk. And while you're right that in three of those four markets, the decling AM talker happens to be owned by CC, I don't see that their audience is going anywhere other than the graveyard. It's not like they'd regain dominance by adding four more staffers.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Perhaps not, but WBEN is doing far better revenue-wise because they've invested more in their product. CC cheaped out, and it's costing them.

 

[Mark Giardina]

A lot of the public stations have built their current reputations around news, but a lot of that flies below the radar of some folks.

Another thing that "flies below the radar" is that a number of public stations have (like their commercial counterparts) either reduced their commitment to local news by relying more on network coverage or trimming their local work force.

Case in point: There were more people working in radio news at WXXI when I started there in 1990 then there are today. One reason is that management decided not to replace some employees who left on their own or were fired. Another, most recent reason, is that news personnel with experience were offered early retirement thus leaving a gap when it came to having on staff people with knowledge about the market along with reliable sources and news contacts.

You can not gut a news department of long-time veterans and replace them with recent college graduates just in an attempt to save money without suffering the consequences when it comes to experience and dedication. Unfortunately experience and dedication takes a back seat to the bottom line or in some cases fatter paychecks and bonuses for those individuals sitting behind desks calling the shots.

 

[Element9]

WHAM's current placement in the top 5 12+ is due to their past reputation for news/talk. Their big signal gets out well. Their slow slide from the top is directly attributable to CC's lack of support for their local product.

I don't see how it makes a big difference. In both cases, the AM talker is being beaten by country music. The one consistent theme as you look at all of the upstate cities: Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, and Syracuse, is the strength of country music, and the weakening of AM talk. And while you're right that in three of those four markets, the decling AM talker happens to be owned by CC, I don't see that their audience is going anywhere other than the graveyard. It's not like they'd regain dominance by adding four more staffers.

Adding four staffers might help if they were 25-44, paid a reasonable wage on a full time scale and were dedicated to their craft. Unfortunately, talk radio as it is programmed, formulated and offered, appeals to an aging demo. In Buffalo, the WBFO and AM 970 simulcast of NPR, provides a challenge to WBEN with local news programming from a full time staff enhanced by a few part-time pensioners from WBFO. NPR seems to have an understanding of what it takes to appeal to a younger demo. In the context of news-talk, "younger" means 45-54 as opposed to 55+ or 60+. The NPR stations in Buffalo haven't yet cracked the 25-44 nut, but it seems they're better focused on the problem than the commercial news-talker.

The growth demographic for news-talk stations is 25-44. Gaining a strong foothold and dominance here is not an easy task, given the competition from music formats and other news, talk, entertainment pipelines. Old, white men ranting right or left on AM radio just does not cut it with 25-44 year old listeners. AM talk radio isn't dead, but the clock is ticking. Shifting that same AM ranting formula to FM isn't going to increase or attract a new, younger audience, nor will 'having an on-line presence.' What's happening at WHAM is symptomatic of the demise of AM talk radio. Consider some it the result of the corporate rot that set in during the late 90s.

 

[TheBigA]

What's happening at WHAM is symptomatic of the demise of AM talk radio. Consider some it the result of the corporate rot that set in during the late 90s.

I don't think it has anything to do with "corporate rot." The same thing would have happened if the station had been locally owned. What's happening in radio is more a function of changes in sociology than internal radio politics. The users of radio have changed, and their habits have changed. Thus, we will see changes in what they want from radio. When I'm driving in my car and I see tail lights come on ahead of me, my first inclination is to reach for my cell phone, not turn on an AM radio station. I will get more specialized information about my specific traffic situation from looking at my phone than I will from a :30 regional radio traffic report. Last night I was watching ESPN, and I could wait for the crawl to give me the scores I want. Or I could go online and find out instantly. With regards to AM talk radio, I could either listen to some old right wing guy rant, or I can come to this message board and interact with people on subjects I'm interested in. These are the choices we have now that we never had before. This is why AM talk radio is in trouble, and why ownership, corporate debt, or staffing doesn't matter. Fix all those things, and AM talk radio will still be in trouble.

 

[TheBigA]

Another thing that "flies below the radar" is that a number of public stations have (like their commercial counterparts) either reduced their commitment to local news by relying more on network coverage or trimming their local work force.

The thing I find interesting about that is I read all the time about how job cuts in commercial radio are caused by distant corporate owners who have billion dollar debt loads to pay. And yet public radio stations are locally owned, and typically debt free. That tells me that the problem isn't what we think it is. And perhaps some assumptions about radio are wrong. Commercial stations get very detailed ratings reports that clearly show the connection between their actions and revenues. And public stations go directly to their audience for funding, giving them a pretty clear idea of what their users want and like. Yet in both cases, the owners are cutting back on staff. My point here is that getting rid of distant corporate owners or billion dollar debt won't change the fact that radio users have changed, and don't want the same thing their parents wanted. That's not a hard concept to understand. But it's a hard truth to swallow when you're among the parents' generation.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Younger audiences aren't going to listen to programming that doesn't relate to them or their concerns. Your lack of understanding of what happened to WBFO's programming when WNYPB took over is simply symptomatic of your lack of real local knowledge. WNYPB certainly didn't shift their programming on WBFO to a younger audience. If anything, they shifted their programming older. Zorba Pastor, anyone?

As far as getting all your info from your iPhone, thanks for being the idiot playing with his iPhone instead of DRIVING. You probably caused the slowdown, or the accident in the first place. And, who put that info on your iPhone? If it ain't the local stations, it's some jamoke sitting in a market many miles away trying to figure out what traffic cam he's looking at, and what city's it's in.

As the competition weakens, some people prefer to cut costs instead of claiming a bigger piece of the market. WHAM's gotten weaker, and WXXI's followed suit. WXXI also took some money to bargain-shop for another signal in Houghton. Speaking of suits, I don't see any of the people at the top making less money over the long haul. I do see fewer people in the trenches, and most of them are still working for 1980's wages.

Nobody ever said that there isn't short-sighted local management. It's just that they can only screw up one market, as opposed to screwing up an entire industry. I thought that commercial radio was out of touch with their listeners until I started to deal with public radio people. Generation's got a lot less to do with it than experience. Why do you think that advertisers want a younger audience? It's easier to sell them a load of manure than it is to sell somebody who's been there and done that.

 

[TheBigA]

Younger audiences aren't going to listen to programming that doesn't relate to them or their concerns.

I agree.

Your lack of understanding of what happened to WBFO's programming when WNYPB took over is simply symptomatic of your lack of real local knowledge. WNYPB certainly didn't shift their programming on WBFO to a younger audience.

Are you talking to me? I never said that. Maybe you're misreading what I wrote. I don't believe public radio is aiming at a younger audience at all. But they're not maintaining the status quo either, and it has nothing to do with where their owners are based, or how much debt they have. THAT is my main point.