• 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

WRLL Hits New Low in Winter Trend

J

jimerrico

Guest
The Phase 2 Trend book for Winter is out today and Real Oldies 1690, WRLL, has now reached the bottom of the book. After the demise of Oldies on WJMK, `RLL enjoyed a slight ratings renaissance but that`s all evaporated now. I can`t give the exact number from today, but this is the lowest Real Oldies has been in a very long time. I know this is a relatively meaningless Trend report, but `RLL`s momentum has been consistently downward since Scott Shannon signed on with True Oldies on WZZN in late 2005. How much rope will Clear Channel give WRLL? It may be ratings challenged right now, but this station is also significantly challenged signal-wise, perhaps moreso than any other station on the AM band that is owned and operated by a major broadcast conglomerate.
 
> [The Phase 2 Trend book for Winter is out today and Real
> Oldies 1690, WRLL, has now reached the bottom of the book.
> After the demise of Oldies on WJMK, `RLL enjoyed a slight
> ratings renaissance but that`s all evaporated now. I can`t
> give the exact number from today, but this is the lowest
> Real Oldies has been in a very long time. I know this is a
> relatively meaningless Trend report, but `RLL`s momentum has
> been consistently downward since Scott Shannon signed on
> with True Oldies on WZZN in late 2005. How much rope will
> Clear Channel give WRLL? It may be ratings challenged right
> now, but this station is also significantly challenged
> signal-wise, perhaps moreso than any other station on the AM
> band that is owned and operated by a major broadcast
> conglomerate.]


Well, keep in mind that WRLL also changed somewhat in late 2005. They added music from beyond 1963 to their playlist in hopes of picking up some of WJMK's audience. And it's mostly the same recycled music that was played on WJMK. It light of what WZZN has done, I think that was a mistake. I'd like to see them go back to the fresh sounding '50s/early '60s station that they were prior to WJMK's demise.
 
>
> Well, keep in mind that WRLL also changed somewhat in late
> 2005. They added music from beyond 1963 to their playlist
> in hopes of picking up some of WJMK's audience. And it's
> mostly the same recycled music that was played on WJMK. It
> light of what WZZN has done, I think that was a mistake.
> I'd like to see them go back to the fresh sounding
> '50s/early '60s station that they were prior to WJMK's
> demise.

Actually, this low point equals last spring - when they were the "fresh-sounding" station that Fonz describes. Had they not changed, they'd be long gone by now.
 
> True Oldies dropped two tenths as well. Funny you didn't
> mention how they appear to have peaked.

That`s a good point, maybe the oldies are becoming repititous
and this is the fallout. It`s very hard to discern much from
a relatively small Trend, but I bet Farid Suleman at Citadel
is paying very close attention to WZZN`s unexpected downturn?
 
> > True Oldies dropped two tenths as well. Funny you didn't
> > mention how they appear to have peaked.
>
> That`s a good point, maybe the oldies are becoming
> repititous
> and this is the fallout. It`s very hard to discern much
> from
> a relatively small Trend,

A trend has the same sample size as a book; it is a 12 week rolling average. Every third trend becomes a book.
 
> >
> >[ Well, keep in mind that WRLL also changed somewhat in late
>
> > 2005. They added music from beyond 1963 to their playlist
>
> > in hopes of picking up some of WJMK's audience. And it's
> > mostly the same recycled music that was played on WJMK.
> It
> > light of what WZZN has done, I think that was a mistake.
> > I'd like to see them go back to the fresh sounding
> > '50s/early '60s station that they were prior to WJMK's
> > demise.]
>
> [Actually, this low point equals last spring - when they were
> the "fresh-sounding" station that Fonz describes. Had they
> not changed, they'd be long gone by now.]


WRLL has been pretty consistant in the ratings since they signed on a full 30 months ago. Clear Channel had a chance to flip WRLL to Air America Radio last summer. They passed. If Real Oldies was "long gone", exactly what would we be hearing on 1690?
 
> WRLL has been pretty consistant in the ratings since they
> signed on a full 30 months ago. Clear Channel had a chance
> to flip WRLL to Air America Radio last summer. They passed.
Yet it was a very scary moment for us oldies listeners.
but however Air America Had landed at AM-850 instead.

> If Real Oldies was "long gone", exactly what would we be
> hearing on 1690?
My guess that the station would be a dead air frequency,
unless if they would of been another ethnic brokered station,
or maybe an fulltime Arabic station, since Chicago has a huge
population of Middle Eastern people. And of course the call
letters would have to change also.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by colonelparker on 03/29/06 01:51 PM.</FONT></P>
 
WRLL

And, really, in the end we're talking below a 1 share.

Big deal.
 
Re: WRLL

[And, really, in the end we're talking below a 1 share.

Big deal.]


I guess that Clear Channel, the smart business people that they are, decided that a small piece of the pie is better than none at all.
 
> A trend has the same sample size as a book; it is a 12 week
> rolling average. Every third trend becomes a book.

The one difference, of course, is weighting the sample. First and second phases of a book are dependent on what Arb gets back in terms of diaries; the third phase is subject to manipulation in terms of balancing the sample (efforts to get more return from particular demographics).

In other words - if both oldies stations are down, it *could* be that the return from people 45+ was less than expected. Were that the case, in phase 3 you'd see extra diaries sent to those people.

That's why typically no one's undies get in too tight a bunch about trends. It's been surprising to see Feder put so much stock in them this time around re: Rover.
 
> > A trend has the same sample size as a book; it is a 12
> week
> > rolling average. Every third trend becomes a book.
>
> The one difference, of course, is weighting the sample.
> First and second phases of a book are dependent on what Arb
> gets back in terms of diaries; the third phase is subject to
> manipulation in terms of balancing the sample (efforts to
> get more return from particular demographics).

A trend tends to be pretty faithful to the data when you compare extraps with Phase I and Phase II data. There are small variances, but you have the same sample size, and Arbitron knows by experience very closely how many diaries to place for each demo, so weighting is very tiny in any cell (look at sample report).
 
WRLL

an extremely small piece. My guess is "what the hell else would we put on that AM frequency?" is their mindset. I guarantee you the gain from that format on that frequency is almost undetectable.


>
> I guess that Clear Channel, the smart business people that
> they are, decided that a small piece of the pie is better than none at all.
>
 
Re: WRLL

CC is keeping WRLL on because it is cheap to run.

So if revenue is over expenses, it is in good status, unless another cheaper profitable format could be laid out.

And right now, WKSC is a more urgent priority.



> an extremely small piece. My guess is "what the hell else
> would we put on that AM frequency?" is their mindset. I
> guarantee you the gain from that format on that frequency is
> almost undetectable.
>
>
> >
> > I guess that Clear Channel, the smart business people that
>
> > they are, decided that a small piece of the pie is better
> than none at all.
> >
> <P ID="signature">______________

"Z"
Music Coordinator/Technical Support</P>
 
Re: WRLL

> CC is keeping WRLL on because it is cheap to run.
>
> So if revenue is over expenses, it is in good status, unless
> another cheaper profitable format could be laid out.
>
> And right now, WKSC is a more urgent priority.

You are saying that they can not walk and chew gum at the same time at CC? doing something useful with WRLL would be important, even if it is putting La Precisa or similar on it. WKSC is not a "priority" as it has just beaten B-96 in two trends and shows good forward momentum, huge cume and nice demos.
 
Re: WRLL

>> You are saying that they can not walk and chew gum at the same time at CC?

I am not saying it, are you?

> WKSC is not a "priority" as it has just beaten B-96 in
> two trends and shows good forward momentum, huge cume and
> nice demos.

Nice they beat them, now they need to HOLD on to it.

That is a major accomplishment considering 5 years later they are still billing less than JO.

And for a station to be doing so well they blow out the PD to have the OUTSIDE consultant run the ship?

>> doing something useful with WRLL would be important, even if it is putting La Precisa or similar on it.

And why not broker the station? Go all Polish. Or all Russian. There are a ton of ethnic blocs that number in this market that can be served. Or pipe in some English language format off the bird. The possibilities are endless. <P ID="signature">______________

"Z"
Music Coordinator/Technical Support</P>
 
Re: WRLL

David:

I believe WKSC-FM beat WBBM-FM in one trend, not two. What are you looking at, if I may ask?<P ID="signature">______________
Rob Austin
Vice President
JamTraxx Media Inc.
http://www.jamtraxxmedia.com
"Major Market Solutions for Your Radio Station's Needs!"</P>
 
Re: WRLL

> David:
>
> I believe WKSC-FM beat WBBM-FM in one trend, not two. What
> are you looking at, if I may ask?

In two of the last 4 months, WKSC has beaten B-96 in share. Same with cume. Looking at actuals from Fall, extraps from Winter.

In 18-34, 4 of the last 7 months WKSC has won. And 18-34 is salble, while the 12-17 is not.
>
 
Re: WRLL

>
> That is a major accomplishment considering 5 years later
> they are still billing less than JO.

why do you keep bring this up? JO went away because it way dying everywhere. It was tried a year ago in San Antonio, and peaked at #1 25-54 and is now down about 10th and dying.

It was smart to make the money on JO while they could. It was also very smart to dump the format when it started dying. It was never intended to be a long term format, as none of the songs had the passion level needed to sustain a gold based format over time.
>
> And for a station to be doing so well they blow out the PD
> to have the OUTSIDE consultant run the ship?

We do not know what has happened. I have blown out a PD as a station reached the highest cume level of any staiton in the western Hemisphere because of personal issues and not competency. We don not know, but I would suspect that the old "philosophical differences" were at the bottom of this, not ratings.
>
> >> doing something useful with WRLL would be important, even
> if it is putting La Precisa or similar on it.
>
> And why not broker the station? Go all Polish.

Clear is barely competent to do Spanish. They generally do not do brokered radio, and would not go into Polish as the field is crowded and requires a Polish American owner to work best.

> Or all
> Russian. There are a ton of ethnic blocs that number in this
> market that can be served. Or pipe in some English language
> format off the bird. The possibilities are endless.

They should have put Air America on it as was rumored. Chicago has enough bad, high band AMs to do every language spoken by man, but the business model for that is not something Clear is equipped to handle.
>
 
Re: WRLL

> [CC is keeping WRLL on because it is cheap to run.
> So if revenue is over expenses, it is in good status, unless
> another cheaper profitable format could be laid out.]


Good observation. Radio people like to get hung up on ratings. Ratings are important, to be sure. But it would seem that survival is more important. And with all of the competition terrestrial radio faces today, maybe it's time they start thinking about survival. About 30% of the stations in Chicago are at 1.0 or less. Where will those stations be in another couple of years?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom