WYSL Not Showing Up In The Book ???

[Mark_Giardina]

I understand why WTBA has a loyal following and showing up in the Rochester Metro Arbitrons but I don't understand why WYSL, which is both closer to Rochester and signal actually covers a larger part of Monroe County is never in the book?
And please don't say that's because the station has no audience because advertisers wouldn't spend money on a station with no listeners.
It will especially be interesting to see if WYSL shows up in the book once the station turns on its new 20kw transmitter, which will increase its coverage area.

???

 

[anoldguy]

Mark to be brutally honest the reason WYSL doesn't show up in the Rochester ratings is because the programing just sucks. Do you ever listen to it? I have tried a couple times. It is just boring. They are a news station. Just how many "news people" do they have in the "News department"? Recently they have added 3rd string right wing talk shows. These are the same shows WACK runs in nearby Newark and doesn't show up in the ratings either. WFBL in Syracuse runs the same stuff on one of the best signals in their area and can't beat a 2 share and Syracuse is much more conserative than the Rochester area.
At this point, programing-wise I think an oldies format would generate more listeners and would probably show in the ratings - but would it be more revenue producing?. That said, if the station is making money the way it is good for them. Why change? I just wouldn't expect to mount a ratings challange to WHAM the way it sounds now.

 

[Mark_Giardina]

Mark to be brutally honest the reason WYSL doesn't show up in the Rochester ratings is because the programing just sucks. Do you ever listen to it? I have tried a couple times. It is just boring. They are a news station. Just how many "news people" do they have in the "News department"? Recently they have added 3rd string right wing talk shows. These are the same shows WACK runs in nearby Newark and doesn't show up in the ratings either. WFBL in Syracuse runs the same stuff on one of the best signals in their area and can't beat a 2 share and Syracuse is much more conserative than the Rochester area.
At this point, programing-wise I think an oldies format would generate more listeners and would probably show in the ratings - but would it be more revenue producing?. That said, if the station is making money the way it is good for them. Why change? I just wouldn't expect to mount a ratings challange to WHAM the way it sounds now.

I was a fan of AP’s 24 radio news format and am sorry to see that operation fold. But I still maintain that it just does not make any sense that stations in Waterloo and Dansville can show up in the Rochester Metro Arbitrons with numbers of less than one percent, yet WYSL doesn’t register a blip in the book. Something is terribly wrong here. You believe it’s the format while I think its something else.

 

[dampier]

Recently they have added 3rd string right wing talk shows. These are the same shows WACK runs in nearby Newark and doesn't show up in the ratings either. WFBL in Syracuse runs the same stuff on one of the best signals in their area and can't beat a 2 share and Syracuse is much more conserative than the Rochester area.

Some of these shows were on WROC-AM before it flipped to AAR and didn't do well either. I think for the older audience that loves conservative talk, WHAM owns them and they aren't all that likely to switch.

 

[Mark_Giardina]

Some of these shows were on WROC-AM before it flipped to AAR and didn't do well either. I think for the older audience that loves conservative talk, WHAM owns them and they aren't all that likely to switch.

Phil,

You make some good points, but you also have to take into consideration that WROC-AM never really promoted their programs, outside of the station that is, and that 950's pattern is not the best when it comes to coverage.

On the other hand WYSL is about to fire up its 20kw transmitter in the near future, perhaps later this month, which will reach a larger listening audience that WROC-AM. Plus WYSL does have outside -the- station advertising visa-ve WHEC TV, which runs WYSL promos during that TV station's newscast.

Granted WHAM has Limbaugh and Lonsberry and its news reputation. However I wouldn't sell WYSL short just yet.

 

[Savage]

BREAKING NEWS! Anoldguy thinks WYSL programming "just sucks!" Anoldguy hated AP All News Radio. Now, he hates the revised AP-free news format, and Laura Ingraham and Bill O'Reilly, which he thinks are "3rd-string talk shows."

Never mind that Ingraham, a multiple NY Times best-selling author, is headed for 500 affiliates and nationally is network talk radio's fifth-biggest audience. Never mind that O'Reilly, who cross-promotes with his prime nightly TV show, has the biggest audience on cable - an unprecedented 3.6 million viewers, in the same league with network nightly news broadcasts, while competitors Chicken Noodle Network with Larry King and Glenn Beck number their audience in a few hundred thousand, and MessNBC, with the occasional show of hands. Nope: anoldguy thinks Laura and Bill are "3rd string," presumably somewhere below Jeanane Garofolo or Randi Rhodes (if they're still on.)

Year after year, WYSL turns a nice operating profit, executing professionally and entertainingly, and we do it without corporate resources or sister FMs to use as leverage to force revenues onto stepchild AM facilities. And despite what anoldguy thinks, WYSL sponsors utilize the station because it generates results and because they like the programming, as do our many listeners who somehow always go uncounted by Arbitron. The response since WYSL added O'Reilly, Laura, Rusty Humphries, Jerry Doyle and Tammy Bruce has been especially gratifying.

But, what the heck: let's toss 20 years of success with talk and information, smack ourselves in the forehead, and say, "anoldguy, you're right, dammit!! We can't wait to start losing 30 grand a month!! All-oldies on AM, here we come!!" (Of course, we'd want to replicate the roaring success of WWKB 1520 - which did everything right, from adopting a heritage format dating to rock's formative years, to the fortunate availability of their legendary morning personality, superb execution by unbelievably talented Entercom programmers, and 50,000 watts - and which, after two years of zero ratings results, is now left-wing talk. Maybe message-board radio programming expert Dr. anoldguy would next prescribe all-disco for KB.)

Actually, I suspect that if WYSL granted anoldguy his wish and went all-oldies tomorrow, he's still think WYSL programming "just sucks." We wouldn't be doing it right to suit him. There's an agenda here. He just hates the station, period.

But thanks to the rest of you folks who stick up for independent broadcasters in general and WYSL specifically. We work hard, have fun, and appreciate your support.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Great to hear from you, Bob!

I hope the 20KW transmitter is ready to light up soon. I suspect that no matter what's been said here, it'll be a different ballgame for you after that point.

Best of luck,

-OMW

 

[Desert Pete]

Good to hear from a local radio legend.

I've followed this man's work from WAXC to BBF to CKLW. Lost track of him after that, until he returned to do "Warm Nights" on WRMM. I understand he got a law degree somewhere along the way.

Anyway, it boggles my mind as well as to why WYSL doesn't show up. If hard work pays off in revenue, that's one thing. But having numbers to show for it ... well, that'd be nice too.

 

[anoldguy]

First of all, Mr Savage you have missed the point of this thread. It is about the lack of ratings on WYSL. The fact is up to this time they haven’t existed on your station.

BREAKING NEWS! Anoldguy thinks WYSL programming "just sucks!" Anoldguy hated AP All News Radio. Now, he hates ,
I never said that you are putting words into my mouth but A. P. news, in my opinion, is boring
the revised AP-free news format, and Laura Ingraham and Bill O'Reilly, which he thinks are "3rd-string talk shows." I

Never mind that Ingraham, a multiple NY Times best-selling author, is headed for 500 affiliates and nationally is network talk radio's fifth-biggest audience. Never mind that O'Reilly, who cross-promotes with his prime nightly TV show, has the biggest audience on cable - an unprecedented 3.6 million viewers
(which is dropping),
in the same league with network nightly news broadcasts, while competitors Chicken Noodle Network with Larry King and Glenn Beck number their audience in a few hundred thousand, and MessNBC, with the occasional show of hands. Nope: anoldguy thinks Laura and Bill are "3rd string," presumably somewhere below Jeanane Garofolo or Randi Rhodes (if they're still on.)
Don’t like Randi Rhodes either (she’s also boring) and I don’t think Jeanane Garofolo is on in the Rochester market. The fact is and you didn’t address it that these programs do not show up elsewhere in the ratings. Not on WACK which has a pretty good signal over the Eastern part of the Rochester market and not in Syracuse (a much more conservative market)with a killer signal on a heritage station.

Year after year, WYSL turns a nice operating profit, executing professionally and entertainingly, and we do it without corporate resources or sister FMs to use as leverage to force revenues onto stepchild AM facilities. And despite what anoldguy thinks, WYSL sponsors utilize the station because it generates results and because they like the programming, as do our many listeners who somehow always go uncounted by Arbitron. The response since WYSL added O'Reilly, Laura, Rusty Humphries, Jerry Doyle and Tammy Bruce has been especially gratifying.
I’ll take your word for it, you are financially successful without the Arbitron numbers

But, what the heck: let's toss 20 years of success with talk and information, smack ourselves in the forehead, and say, "anoldguy, you're right, dammit!! We can't wait to start losing 30 grand a month!! All-oldies on AM, here we come!!" (Of course, we'd want to replicate the roaring success of WWKB 1520 - which did everything right, from adopting a heritage format dating to rock's formative years, to the fortunate availability of their legendary morning personality, superb execution by unbelievably talented Entercom programmers, and 50,000 watts - and which, after two years of zero ratings results, is now left-wing talk. Maybe message-board radio programming expert Dr. anoldguy would next prescribe all-disco for KB.).
Now Bob read my thread again. I never said oldies would be a financial success on WYSL. I used oldies as an example to show up in the book but you don’t need ratings you are profitable as is (I am not being sarcastic here). An oldies format would have you show in the book maybe a 2 share at best but it would show up.

Actually, I suspect that if WYSL granted anoldguy his wish and went all-oldies tomorrow, he's still think WYSL programming "just sucks." We wouldn't be doing it right to suit him. There's an agenda here. He just hates the station, period.

Nope, no agenda here. I don’t “hate “ you or your station. Actually I wish you success. I am for you and your station. I always pull for the little guy. I am no fan of the big media companies. The topic was why WYSL didn’t get any ratings and I addressed it with my opinion. Maybe you don’t like me stating my opinion. Your boy O’Reilly certainly would have cut me off by this time.
The book comes out next week. I hope the next thread is WYSL shows up in the spring book!. If WYSL does show up in the book you don't have to say I told you so. I will be pleased for you.

.

 

[Mark_Giardina]

The book comes out next week. I hope the next thread is WYSL shows up in the spring book!. If WYSL does show up in the book you don't have to say I told you so. I will be pleased for you.

If the spring book comes out and WYSL is not listed then personally I believe that Arbitron has lost what is left of its creditability as a barometer for radio audience listenership.

Set aside the fact that Bob Savage and I have been friends for years and come to the reality that its impossible, I repeat impossible for Dansville or Waterloo stations to register in the Rochester Metro book and not WYSL. Even if WYSL generated a 0.1 share, it should still be recorded, but its not. Hell there are stations that register 0.0 share and they are listed in the Arbitrons.

I know that WYSL does not subscribe to Arbitron, but neither does WBTA or I'm sure several of the outlining Rochester radio stations, yet they appear in the book. So it's a lame excuse for someone to claim that in order for a station to be counted in the ratings book they must subscribe. WRONG! That station just does not get a breakdown of the book because they haven't paid for it. I know for a fact a young couple who had a diary and wrote down they listen to WYSL. So the big question is, why didn't that count?

 

[SirRoxalot]

Maybe Arbitron thinks that WYSL is still on 1400 in Buffalo...

 

[Mark_Giardina]

Maybe Arbitron thinks that WYSL is still on 1400 in Buffalo...

That's not the case because once, years ago, Arbitron did list WYSL in the Rochester Metro book, so the company is aware that the station is on 1040 and belongs in the Rochester, not Buffalo, list.

 

[Savage]

I don't know if you guys have ever gone down to Arbitron to look over your market's diaries, but I have. It's 1000 percent worse than you could ever imagine. A majority of the diaries are illegible, appear to have been filled out by respondents' preschool children with crayons, contain references to primetime TV shows, or even movies. The "diary editors" are minimum-wage worker bees referring to station roster and slogan information which is outdated, grossly inaccurate or even from other radio markets. Back in the day, Arbitron used to publish a graphic in the back of each book called the "nomograph" which purported to depict the statistical accuracy of the report. They stopped publishing it when some radio programmers discovered, by interpreting the nomograph, that the accuracy of any given report was roughly comparable to firing a .22 at passing airliners in your back yard while blindfolded. So for this reason, plus a lot of practical applications regarding WYSL's long-term sales approach, we really don't worry about ratings. They're irrelevant to us - a view increasingly being adopted by advertisers and agencies, by the way.

As far as criticisms of WYSL programming go, they're fine with me. Radio-info performs a valuable safety-valve function mirroring the postgame radio call-in shows in every NFL market. It's vital to the safety of the country, to have an outlet where every drywall installer and every deep-fry jockey at McDonalds can dial up the postgame show in front of his buds and scream, "the quarterback sucks!! Fire the coach!!"

Similarly, every former radio person, every guy who's ever bulked a cart, should be able to vent from the safety of the sidelines. Otherwise, they'll blow up. Recipe for expertise: one radio employee (former or "between jobs" included), one well-sharpened ax to grind, mix well with one high-speed internet connection. Poof! Instant "Radio Programming Consultant!!"

My thanks and gratitude to the many nice comments we get from real broadcasters out there fighting the good fight. And a little semi non-sequitur here: kudos to guys like Joe Reilly a/k/a Bobby Hatfield and new station owner Dave Radigan, who are also eschewing the world of corporate broadcasting to do "real radio" in small markets. See, it IS still possible to have fun and make a living in this business!

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

It's Friday. There's a sheaf of production orders to take care of , yet I cannot help but log in and offer an opinion backing up what Bob Savage and others have submitted.

Bob's latest entry inspired me to open the Winter 2006 book to page M5... the page that contains the codicil and disclaimer that look like they were written by lawyers (sorry Bob, but there's one in my family, so I get a pass on that remark), cryptologists and statisticians.

Programmers and jocks would do well to read "Statistical Reliability" paragraph 11, and "Sampling Error" paragraph 12, Effective Sample Base. I've read these a few times after good books and bad books. If for no other reason (which may be inducement of sleep) it offers a certain explanation of the radio and sports axiom, "you're never as good as you think you are in a good book (game) and never as bad as your competitors think you are after a bad book (game.)"1 For the record, I'm no Arbitron guru, but I've been in the trenches long enough to remember nomographs. They often served as a dose of reality!1 Think you had a 7 share in the last book? Well, take a look at the nomograph and it could be that 7 share might be a 5.2... or maybe an 8.7.

It's been my experience and opinion that when you're working at or operating a station in a small (bedroom) community, the station's revenue and service were (are) far more important than ratings.

In this regard especially, WYSL seems to place at the top of the ratings. It's a superb station that I have often used as an example when talking to managers of (small market) stations that I have consulted. As I am on record of stating on these boards, WYSL is a small market station with a major market attitude and presentation.

---
Commentary above is offered solely as personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of my co-workers, managers and/or employer.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Bob has a huge, huge point.

I've never taken the trip to see the Arbitron diaries, but I know those who have done so.

In one of my previous markets, we had a *very* well-known host who had been on our airwaves for years. In fact, he's still on, today, in the same time slot he was in over 20 years ago!

He's so well-known that even people who had never turned on an AM radio knew where he worked. He had the kind of name recognition station managers would kill for, anywhere. He was on billboards all over town. He had a high-profile TV gig.

You wouldn't know it from the Arbitron diaries we heard about.

People credited his show to just about every radio station in the market you could come up with. He was credited by diary keepers to the crosstown standards station, to the competing talk station, to an FM station or two, and even to a TV station (!).

It's a wonder that smaller stations like Bob even get a single credit in the ratings.

Anyway, though I'm biased because I've met Bob and had a chance to hear him speak... stations like Bob's do well, DESPITE this.

-OMW

 

[Obtuse1]

"Never mind that O'Reilly, who cross-promotes with his prime nightly TV show, has the biggest audience on cable - an unprecedented 3.6 million viewers, in the same league with network nightly news broadcasts"

You must be getting your numbers from Mr O'Reilly's staff (not exactly known for their fact-checking prowess), because (for example) in February of 2006 the O'Reilly Factor averaged a 1.9 rating with 2.3 million total viewers a night. And his numbers have slid a bit since then.

3rd quarter 2005 Factor rating: 2.5 -- Total Viewers - 2,820,000

October 2005: 2.3 -- Total Viewers - 2,600,000

November 2005: 2.2 -- Total Viewers - 2,500,000

January 2006: 2.0 -- Total Viewers - 2,325,000

February 2006: 1.9 -- Total Viewers - 2,228,000


The network news broadcasts (NBC, CBS, ABC), usually avarage between 8 and 10 million viewers each. Bill (even with your faulty numbers) ain't anywhwere near that. But then again, this is apples to oranges, as Bill is not a newscaster (he's a right wing commentator), and his show is not a newscast. He doesn't have "the biggest audience on cable" either, as that honor usually goes to such fare as "Spongebob Squarepants" and "WWE Raw".

 

[Savage]

I stand corrected on O'Reilly's audience figures, and apologize for the outdated information. And I never claimed that his cable TV show is a newscast. The point that I was trying to make, and apparently missed: notwithstanding anoldguy's blast at WYSL programming as including "3rd-string right-wing talk shows," O'Reilly represents a well-known prime time media figure, if not "icon," who's had multiple NY Times best-selling books and whose prime-time news/talk show is the only one of its type that's in the same audience league with nightly network news offerings. THAT's what I was trying to say. With hundreds of radio affiliates and a presence in every major market, O'Reilly can hardly be described fairly as "third string," love him or hate him (and there are plenty in both camps.) Mr. No-Spin is no Jeaneane Garofolo, but he's still PRETTY well-known. And, in the context of the poster's critical comments about WYSL, O'Reilly holds more promise of attracting an Arbitron-measureable audience than, say, "Good Vibrations" by the Beach Boys for the 6 millionth time.

If I suggested to anyone other than Obtuse1 that I believe O'Reilly beats Brian Williams or Spongebob... or IS somehow like Brian Williams or Spongebob, I hasten to assure you otherwise.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Good News / Bad News

The good news is that WYSL shows up in the next book. The bad news is that the show that scores is listed by the diarist as "Kevin O'Connell"...

Just trying to lighten things up, guys.

 

[Mark_Giardina]

Similarly, every former radio person, every guy who's ever bulked a cart, should be able to vent from the safety of the sidelines. Otherwise, they'll blow up. Recipe for expertise: one radio employee (former or "between jobs" included), one well-sharpened ax to grind, mix well with one high-speed internet connection. Poof! Instant "Radio Programming Consultant!!"

Hey! I resemble that remark ;D

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Hey! I resemble that remark ;D

Though, really...Mr. Savage has a point. We're just assuming it's not directed at either you or me.

While both here and on OMW, I certainly make my feelings known about stations that couldn't get 2+2 right if you spotted them the 4, I hope that I never come across as having an axe to grind.

The thing I dislike most on boards like these is when folks rail on about stations because the station's format doesn't suit their particular tastes.

These boards are filled with top-40 fanatics who think every FM station should flip to the format, and do it the way THEY like. And there are any number of oldies radio enthusiasts who dislike various forms of the talk format, and have their own feelings on how the oldies format should even be presented. And in both cases, that personal feeling clouds their radio judgement.

I personally don't really listen to any religious radio format, but I don't go whining about the fact that, for example, one of the larger religious radio format operators has control of Cleveland's second largest AM signal. I don't listen, but the radio spectrum as a whole doesn't exist to serve my own needs.

I don't know Mr. Savage well (I've only met him once), but he appears from this corner to be a savvy radio operator who does quite well with his station. And like a major New York City radio programmer once said in the newspaper, "I don't program my station based on message board posts".

-OMW