• 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

WJMK news flash

Re: WRLL reality check

> Obviously, you and David Eduardo, know very little about
> Chicago radio.

I know enough to be part of the team that gets combined 7.7 share in the market. I have been involved in one way or another with Chicago radio since my first association with WOJO in 1982.

> Chicago radio for the average listener in the
> early 60's and 70's was probably the most exciting radio in
> the country.

I camped at WLS one day in the early 60's, and have a WLS jock photo card signed by Biondi, Art Roerts, Sam Holman and the rest of the staff... all of whom I waited for at the station.

(it's online at http://www.davidgleason.com/1946-1964-E.htm )

Chicago radio was good, but not that much better than any other market of size in the early days of Top 40. For good early Top 40, nothing beat a McLendon or Storz station. Or classics like Metromedia´s WHK in Cleveland or Cece Heftel's KIMN in Denver... or KB in Buffalo... the legendary WBBQ in Agusta, GA... the Crowell collier Top 40's like KDWB, KEWB and KFWB... Quixie in Atlanta, the magnificent WGH in Norfolk, KQV in Pittsburrgh or WPOP in Hartford and many more great, great stations. WLS owes its greatness as much to 50 kw on 890 in an area of high ground conductivity as it does to programming. Stations inside the coverage area, like WROK in Rockford and KSTT in the Quint Cities and WCVS in Springfield consistently creamed WLS in the local area because they were also great stations. Chicago radio was good, but not vastly superior... if at all.. to that of other markets.

> While WRLL's (We Rock (with) Larry Lujack),
> signal sucks at night, its programming is top notch. I
> think a sizable number of 104.3 listeners will find 1690 on
> the AM dial.

Only those over 55 or so will be interested. As Oldiescat said, this is not a station for younger demos... especially with frank sinatra and Dean Martin cuts. It ain't 'LS or Super CFL.
 
Re: It was not deregulation.

> You're exactly right in your assessments. Kudos! And I said
> it years ago. De-Reg was the death of radio because radio
> wasn't meant to be run like this. Music, ideas and formats
> fall by the wayside because they INTERFERE with cluster.
> Never mind there's a market for it, if it interferes with
> OUR CLUSTER or another company has that demo locked, the
> format gets ignored and the PEOPLE get screwed. Wall Street
> can't run itself properly and it's running radio, go figure.
> CCU, INF, DIS all got what they lobbied for and the end
> result is this mess. Radio is losing people to alternative
> technologies and radio slept through it's beginning. Radio
> creates band-aids that will bridge the problem into other
> quarters not yet seen. That's all they've been doing.
> Prolonging the reality. Radio is the horse and buggy and
> this is 1908 all over again. Eventually the horseless
> carriage will take over. The question is will CCU, INF and
> DIS be a part of any of it?

The greatest loss in PUR was between 1988 and 1995, a year before dereg. Plesase try to find an excuse that checks out in the area of fact.

And radio still cumes the SAME percentage of persons it did prior to deregulation.
 
Re: Jammin' Oldies-time to grow?

> > What is fading faster? Oldies or WCKG? Silly of me to
> think
> > this. Oldies, like Jammin' Oldies needs to breath, grow
> and
> > come up each decade.
>
> Uh, let's not put Oldies in any sort of comparison with
> Jammin' Oldies- that
> was a totally dog format that did ZERO anywhere (except
> maybe Mojo in Cincy).

Jammin' Oldies was designed as an LA format, and was researched (by BA) against Hispanic second generation females 25-44. The format, implemented by Harold Austin (Hispanic) kicked ass in this group. Unfortunately, they put, later, a whitebread morning show on and tried to broaden the format. But it´s base is solid, and still would be today... in LA.

The silly thing was to see the format put on in lily-white places like Minneapolis. It was designed as an Hispanic format, and would never work well any way else.
>
 
Re: sorry

> No- many of the Oldies stations that held on to 50s & early
> 60s music the longest are victims. They didn't catch the
> wave out of 50's and into 70's soon enough.
>

Total truth.
 
Re: WRLL reality check

> > Obviously, you and David Eduardo, know very little about
> > Chicago radio.
>
. . . and I should have said the English speaking radio, David. You, as a professional in the business, have jumped to some pretty startling conclusions which just haven't panned out. While I repsect your expertise, your "knowledge" sometimes gets in the way of what is really happening in (English speaking) Chicago radio. BTW, how many stations does it take to get your 7.7 share in the market--2, 3, 4?
>
> I know enough to be part of the team that gets combined 7.7
> share in the market. I have been involved in one way or
> another with Chicago radio since my first association with
> WOJO in 1982.
>
> > Chicago radio for the average listener in the
> > early 60's and 70's was probably the most exciting radio
> in
> > the country.
>
> I camped at WLS one day in the early 60's, and have a WLS
> jock photo card signed by Biondi, Art Roerts, Sam Holman and
> the rest of the staff... all of whom I waited for at the
> station.
>
> (it's online at http://www.davidgleason.com/1946-1964-E.htm
> )
>
> Chicago radio was good, but not that much better than any
> other market of size in the early days of Top 40. For good
> early Top 40, nothing beat a McLendon or Storz station. Or
> classics like Metromedia´s WHK in Cleveland or Cece Heftel's
> KIMN in Denver... or KB in Buffalo... the legendary WBBQ in
> Agusta, GA... the Crowell collier Top 40's like KDWB, KEWB
> and KFWB... Quixie in Atlanta, the magnificent WGH in
> Norfolk, KQV in Pittsburrgh or WPOP in Hartford and many
> more great, great stations. WLS owes its greatness as much
> to 50 kw on 890 in an area of high ground conductivity as it
> does to programming. Stations inside the coverage area, like
> WROK in Rockford and KSTT in the Quint Cities and WCVS in
> Springfield consistently creamed WLS in the local area
> because they were also great stations. Chicago radio was
> good, but not vastly superior... if at all.. to that of
> other markets.
>
You've got to be kidding, right? Ground conductivity and 50,000 watts are equal to great programming on LS????? That comment, alone, shows your lack of understanding about how good Chicago radio was. IMHO, LS could have been at 560AM (WIND) at 5000 watts and been just as successful. David, you can fool some of the people who didn't have the experience of listening to Chicago radio, but you can't fool people who lived in/around the Chicago area about how good Chicago radio REALLY was.

BTW, it seems that one Robert W. Morgan came to Chicago in the early 70's to be morning man at WIND to try and unseat Lujack . . . he went back to LA in a year or so.

WIND in the early 70's was a very good station. We, also, had a nice little station in Gary, IN in the early 60's--WLTH. Nice little rocker at the time, and it was home to one Kris Erik Stevens--who happened to go onto greater things at LS and CFL.

I would hope that a local station in Springfield (IL?) would cream LS. There is a 3 or 4 hours driving time between the two cities!!!


> > While WRLL's (We Rock (with) Larry Lujack),
> > signal sucks at night, its programming is top notch. I
> > think a sizable number of 104.3 listeners will find 1690
> on
> > the AM dial.
>
> Only those over 55 or so will be interested. As Oldiescat
> said, this is not a station for younger demos... especially
> with frank sinatra and Dean Martin cuts. It ain't 'LS or
> Super CFL.
>
It can't be LS or CFL. Music-wise, it is close to what LS did in the early 60's. It isn't even trying to be CFL, in my opinion. CFL became a major player in 70's; RLL's programming is from the mid/late 50's to pre-Beatles. Go look on the charts from THAT time period and tell all of us who were the recording artist that appeared on them. Let me guess, Sinatra and Martin along with others like Nat King Cole DID appear. Then, it shouldn't take a rocket scientologist to think RLL is going to play these artists.

BTW, I'm not 55, so your statement is incorrect.
 
Re: Jammin' Oldies-time to grow?

> > How did the little peashotter 103.1 do when they were
> Heart
> > & Soul, with Murphy in the Morning? Wasn't Winston on in
> > afternoons, also?
>
> Klunk,
>
> 103.1 as Heart & Soul barely bliped Arbitron.
>
> WXXY/WYXX did not take off until they launched the
> mainstream pop 80's format, a few weeks after the peashooter
> WXXY signal went Super Class A directional, toward the city.
> BCR sales staff cross sold it with their then Mainstream CHR
> tri-mulcast on 92.7/92.5
>
> Murphy had his loyal followers. And Winston on the 80's
> Channel sounded right at home doing 3-7pm.
>
Thanks for the information.
 
Re: WRLL reality check

> >
> . . . and I should have said the English speaking radio,
> David.

I began my career in English radio, and have, among other things, put on the air one of the first 5 CHR FMs in the US, programmed heritage AMs like KENO, KRUX and KTKT, and worked on syndication projects with the likes of Ron jacobs and Tom Rounds. I am very familiar with general market radio, since there are only 100 shares in any market, and we all are after them.

> You, as a professional in the business, have jumped
> to some pretty startling conclusions which just haven't
> panned out.

Such as? The only time I have reversed a view was referent to WRLL going with Air America. At one point, this was contemplated, and even published in the trades. When things changed, I posted the change even before the Feder column.

None of us are right 100% of the time, and most programming observations are matters of opinion, anyway.

> While I repsect your expertise, your "knowledge"
> sometimes gets in the way of what is really happening in
> (English speaking) Chicago radio. BTW, how many stations
> does it take to get your 7.7 share in the market--2, 3, 4?

WOJO, Viva and Pasion have over 7 of the shares. The niche format on WRTO gets around a half-share, which is nice for that signal.
> >
> You've got to be kidding, right?

No, I am not. Chicago radio, in the industry, in the 50's and 60's, never had a strong reputation for innovation. The size of the market allowed for more expensive talent, but Chicago was neither better nor worse than any other comparable market at the time.

> Ground conductivity and
> 50,000 watts are equal to great programming on LS?????

WLS was one of dozens of great stations at the time. WOKY in Milwaukee, WSNX in Muskegeon, WILS in Lansing, WIFE in Indy, WGRD in Grand Rapids, KIOA in des Moines, etc. etc were upper Midwest stations that were every bit as good as WLS considering market size. And to say WLSo was better than KLIP, KTSA, KILT, WTIX, KOMA, WQAM,. WABC, KOBY, KCPX, KLEO, KQEO, KRLA, KFWB, KEWB, KISN, KOIL, KSJB, WSGN, WMAK, WCOL, WCPO, WSAI, WJET, etc., etc., is absurd. WLS was my favorite station, because I lived part of the time in Leelanau Cty, MI, where there was no local radio... but I have heard all the mentioned stations and more, and no single station is deserving of the claim you make.

> That
> comment, alone, shows your lack of understanding about how
> good Chicago radio was. IMHO, LS could have been at 560AM
> (WIND) at 5000 watts and been just as successful. David, you
> can fool some of the people who didn't have the experience
> of listening to Chicago radio, but you can't fool people who
> lived in/around the Chicago area about how good Chicago
> radio REALLY was.

Where I lived part of the time, we depended on Chicago radio and WJR in Detroit as our only night service. I am very familiar with Chicago radio... I have a collection of stuff going back to the early 60's, including McLendon's BCSF rpomotion and such. But I can not go out and say that, jsut becaue I was a WLS P1 that WLS was any better than dozens of other staitons, because it was NOT.
>
> BTW, it seems that one Robert W. Morgan came to Chicago in
> the early 70's to be morning man at WIND to try and unseat
> Lujack . . . he went back to LA in a year or so.

Some stations are simply bad. WIND at the time was not as well run as WLS. It takes more than a morning talent to change the status queo... it takes management, engineering, promotion and programming... even the folks in traffic are very important!
>
> WIND in the early 70's was a very good station.

It had sucky ratings, compared to other stations. It was Westingouse's one recognized dud.

> We, also,
> had a nice little station in Gary, IN in the early
> 60's--WLTH. Nice little rocker at the time, and it was home
> to one Kris Erik Stevens--who happened to go onto greater
> things at LS and CFL.

WSGN in Birmingham was once home to Rick Dees. So? Within 4 months of an FM CHR hitting B'ham, Dees had lost #1 and left town. Again, it is not the talent alone, but a team.
>
> I would hope that a local station in Springfield (IL?) would
> cream LS. There is a 3 or 4 hours driving time between the
> two cities!!!


But if LS was so good, and has a local signal there, then losing must mean it was not so good.
> >
> > Only those over 55 or so will be interested. As Oldiescat
> > said, this is not a station for younger demos...
> especially
> > with frank sinatra and Dean Martin cuts. It ain't 'LS or
> > Super CFL.
> >
> It can't be LS or CFL. Music-wise, it is close to what LS
> did in the early 60's. It isn't even trying to be CFL, in
> my opinion. CFL became a major player in 70's; RLL's
> programming is from the mid/late 50's to pre-Beatles. Go
> look on the charts from THAT time period and tell all of us
> who were the recording artist that appeared on them.

We all know the charts from the 50's and 60's are seriously tainted with stiffs. There is no way to program off charts from that era alone.

> Let me
> guess, Sinatra and Martin along with others like Nat King
> Cole DID appear. Then, it shouldn't take a rocket
> scientologist to think RLL is going to play these artists.

L. Ron Hubbard, the rocket scientologist? Deano, NCC and Sinatra were not genuine Top 40 hits. Since there was no AC chart (there was no AC, in fact) all tunes were on the same chart. that does not make it right.
 
Re: WRLL reality check

> > don't get too excited- few FMers will automatically flip
> > their allegiance to
> > an AM that's playing Sinatra as part of it's playlist.
> >
> Obviously, you and David Eduardo, know very little about
> Chicago radio. Chicago radio for the average listener in the
> early 60's and 70's was probably the most exciting radio in
> the country. While WRLL's (We Rock (with) Larry Lujack),
> signal sucks at night, its programming is top notch. I
> think a sizable number of 104.3 listeners will find 1690 on
> the AM dial.

I doubt very many WJMK listeners will be going to WRLL. People that expect to hear Beatles, Rolling Stones, Jefferson Airplane, Supremes, Chicago, Four Tops, Buckinghams, CCR, and other "oldies" artists are going to be very disappointed when they flip to WRLL and they are cranking "nostalgia" artists like Sinatra, Martin and Bennett. If no FM station goes oldies, WRLL would be smart to go to a 50s-early 70s oldies station, kind of like what WJMK sounded like 10 years ago.
> > > It's Called Real Oldies 1690 on your AM dial. I bet
> they
> > > are totally "Jacked up" over there with the probable
> > ratings
> > > jump they are about to receive And you know that they
> are
> >
> > > going to jump at the chance to hire Dick Biondi (and his
>
> > > advertising revenue).
> > >
> >
>
 
Re: WRLL reality check

Why even bother. He's got a 7.7 in non-english speaking stations. I remember when that was great on ONE. He has been in Chicago radio since 1982. I don't think that's even close to you or me but then what do we know. He has his thoughts and opinions and we have ours. I guess working in Chicago radio on/off since the 70s and programming a #1 station [when you had to know how to do it] is nothing compared to the knowledge and wisdom one has [about Chicago radio] when they didn't live in it or work in it. (until 1982)

> > > Obviously, you and David Eduardo, know very little about
>
> > > Chicago radio.
> >
> . . . and I should have said the English speaking radio,
> David. You, as a professional in the business, have jumped
> to some pretty startling conclusions which just haven't
> panned out. While I repsect your expertise, your "knowledge"
> sometimes gets in the way of what is really happening in
> (English speaking) Chicago radio. BTW, how many stations
> does it take to get your 7.7 share in the market--2, 3, 4?
>
> >
> > I know enough to be part of the team that gets combined
> 7.7
> > share in the market. I have been involved in one way or
> > another with Chicago radio since my first association with
>
> > WOJO in 1982.
> >
> > > Chicago radio for the average listener in the
> > > early 60's and 70's was probably the most exciting radio
>
> > in
> > > the country.
> >
> > I camped at WLS one day in the early 60's, and have a WLS
> > jock photo card signed by Biondi, Art Roerts, Sam Holman
> and
> > the rest of the staff... all of whom I waited for at the
> > station.
> >
> > (it's online at
> http://www.davidgleason.com/1946-1964-E.htm
> > )
> >
> > Chicago radio was good, but not that much better than any
> > other market of size in the early days of Top 40. For good
>
> > early Top 40, nothing beat a McLendon or Storz station. Or
>
> > classics like Metromedia´s WHK in Cleveland or Cece
> Heftel's
> > KIMN in Denver... or KB in Buffalo... the legendary WBBQ
> in
> > Agusta, GA... the Crowell collier Top 40's like KDWB, KEWB
>
> > and KFWB... Quixie in Atlanta, the magnificent WGH in
> > Norfolk, KQV in Pittsburrgh or WPOP in Hartford and many
> > more great, great stations. WLS owes its greatness as much
>
> > to 50 kw on 890 in an area of high ground conductivity as
> it
> > does to programming. Stations inside the coverage area,
> like
> > WROK in Rockford and KSTT in the Quint Cities and WCVS in
> > Springfield consistently creamed WLS in the local area
> > because they were also great stations. Chicago radio was
> > good, but not vastly superior... if at all.. to that of
> > other markets.
> >
> You've got to be kidding, right? Ground conductivity and
> 50,000 watts are equal to great programming on LS????? That
> comment, alone, shows your lack of understanding about how
> good Chicago radio was. IMHO, LS could have been at 560AM
> (WIND) at 5000 watts and been just as successful. David, you
> can fool some of the people who didn't have the experience
> of listening to Chicago radio, but you can't fool people who
> lived in/around the Chicago area about how good Chicago
> radio REALLY was.
>
> BTW, it seems that one Robert W. Morgan came to Chicago in
> the early 70's to be morning man at WIND to try and unseat
> Lujack . . . he went back to LA in a year or so.
>
> WIND in the early 70's was a very good station. We, also,
> had a nice little station in Gary, IN in the early
> 60's--WLTH. Nice little rocker at the time, and it was home
> to one Kris Erik Stevens--who happened to go onto greater
> things at LS and CFL.
>
> I would hope that a local station in Springfield (IL?) would
> cream LS. There is a 3 or 4 hours driving time between the
> two cities!!!
>
>
> > > While WRLL's (We Rock (with) Larry Lujack),
> > > signal sucks at night, its programming is top notch. I
> > > think a sizable number of 104.3 listeners will find 1690
>
> > on
> > > the AM dial.
> >
> > Only those over 55 or so will be interested. As Oldiescat
> > said, this is not a station for younger demos...
> especially
> > with frank sinatra and Dean Martin cuts. It ain't 'LS or
> > Super CFL.
> >
> It can't be LS or CFL. Music-wise, it is close to what LS
> did in the early 60's. It isn't even trying to be CFL, in
> my opinion. CFL became a major player in 70's; RLL's
> programming is from the mid/late 50's to pre-Beatles. Go
> look on the charts from THAT time period and tell all of us
> who were the recording artist that appeared on them. Let me
> guess, Sinatra and Martin along with others like Nat King
> Cole DID appear. Then, it shouldn't take a rocket
> scientologist to think RLL is going to play these artists.
>
> BTW, I'm not 55, so your statement is incorrect.
>
 
Re: WRLL reality check

> > LOL. True.
>
> What is the share of _your_ radio station?
>
So is this the "yeah I am David hear me roar I am great board...."

It doesn't matter how many shares anyone's station has....just because someone runs a "winner" doesn't mean they aren't a bonehead.


I don't really agree or disagree with any of your posts....post what you like....but (to me) a real pro wouldn't have to defend themselves on a dork board like this one.

The only thing I gather from reading your stuff is that you have become a corporate guy....wether you started as one or not...digesting and spewing what everyone else has come up with....just my opinion though...
 
Re: WRLL reality check

> Why even bother. He's got a 7.7 in non-english speaking
> stations. I remember when that was great on ONE. He has been
> in Chicago radio since 1982. I don't think that's even close
> to you or me but then what do we know. He has his thoughts
> and opinions and we have ours. I guess working in Chicago
> radio on/off since the 70s and programming a #1 station
> [when you had to know how to do it] is nothing compared to
> the knowledge and wisdom one has [about Chicago radio] when
> they didn't live in it or work in it. (until 1982)

Chicago, despite what you think, is not a particularly unique US market. A good programmer can easily learn a great deal about any market in a short time, and can also surround thmselves with people with greater knowledge to insure a tight fit with the market. My first #1 station was in a market and country I had only lived in for 8 months... you are trying to create a mythical quality around Chicago that does not exist and to create a legendary quality about Chicago radio that is a farse.
 
Re: WRLL reality check

> > > LOL. True.
> >
> > What is the share of _your_ radio station?
> >
> So is this the "yeah I am David hear me roar I am great
> board...."
>
> It doesn't matter how many shares anyone's station
> has....just because someone runs a "winner" doesn't mean
> they aren't a bonehead.
>
>
> I don't really agree or disagree with any of your
> posts....post what you like....but (to me) a real pro
> wouldn't have to defend themselves on a dork board like this
> one.

There is a moment in any argument when speculation has to be compared with results, and if my statement appears pretentious, I appologize.
>
> The only thing I gather from reading your stuff is that you
> have become a corporate guy....wether you started as one or
> not...digesting and spewing what everyone else has come up
> with....just my opinion though...

Radio is a business. I learned this on the first station I owned, 41 years ago. Unless a station has an audience whose size and characteristics are attractive to advertisers, it fails. this entire argument is about the ageing of oldies listeners and the fall from grace as a prime sales vehicle of such stations.
>
 
Re: Jammin' Oldies-time to grow?

I have heard another researcher claim he was the first to test it for AM/FM. I won't mention his name, but he claims the problem was the "suits" making the format "hotter" than the research showed they should go.
 
Re: WRLL reality check

Thanks David.


> > Why even bother. He's got a 7.7 in non-english speaking
> > stations. I remember when that was great on ONE. He has
> been
> > in Chicago radio since 1982. I don't think that's even
> close
> > to you or me but then what do we know. He has his thoughts
>
> > and opinions and we have ours. I guess working in Chicago
> > radio on/off since the 70s and programming a #1 station
> > [when you had to know how to do it] is nothing compared to
>
> > the knowledge and wisdom one has [about Chicago radio]
> when
> > they didn't live in it or work in it. (until 1982)
>
> Chicago, despite what you think, is not a particularly
> unique US market. A good programmer can easily learn a great
> deal about any market in a short time, and can also surround
> thmselves with people with greater knowledge to insure a
> tight fit with the market. My first #1 station was in a
> market and country I had only lived in for 8 months... you
> are trying to create a mythical quality around Chicago that
> does not exist and to create a legendary quality about
> Chicago radio that is a farse.
>
 
Re: Jammin' Oldies-time to grow?

> I have heard another researcher claim he was the first to
> test it for AM/FM. I won't mention his name, but he claims
> the problem was the "suits" making the format "hotter" than
> the research showed they should go.

This may be possible... Broadcast Architecture did the original testing, and the focus was on a pure Hispanic female core. Things like adding London in mornings were not based on the reserch and lessened the Hispanic appeal. In LA, where nearly 50% of the 25-44 females are Hispanic, this was a mistake.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom