WZLX vs. WBOS

[philsirkin]

None of these "fixes" addresses the root cause of the rock problem, namely that the kids and teens who used to cut their musical eye teeth on rock now are more likely to prefer hip-hop and other rhythmic genres. As thrilling as a virtuoso guitar solo may be to boomers and Gen X'ers, it has no appeal to a millennial addicted to the aggressive rhymes and synthesized beats of rap. And they're not "growing up" to become rock fans either. I know people in their 40s and 50s who chose rap over rock in the '90s and still have no interest in rock.

"the kids and teens who used to cut their musical eye teeth on rock now are more likely to prefer hip-hop and other rhythmic genres."

And as hard as it is to accept for those of us who live and die radio - an enormous percentage of them never even turn on terrestrial radio.
You aren't going to have much success programming to people who don't listen.

 

[nowradioguy]

"the kids and teens who used to cut their musical eye teeth on rock now are more likely to prefer hip-hop and other rhythmic genres."

And as hard as it is to accept for those of us who live and die radio - an enormous percentage of them never even turn on terrestrial radio.
You aren't going to have much success programming to people who don't listen.

I've been saying this for years, Mr Sirkin: the hip-hop rhythmic crowd does not listen to terrestrial radio; a lot of us boomers still do, but our music (50s, 60s, 70s), like us, is toxic to advertisers. Yet most broadcasters are still catering to the hip-hop/rhythmic crowd.

 

[CTListener]

I've been saying this for years, Mr Sirkin: the hip-hop rhythmic crowd does not listen to terrestrial radio; a lot of us boomers still do, but our music (50s, 60s, 70s), like us, is toxic to advertisers. Yet most broadcasters are still catering to the hip-hop/rhythmic crowd.

Then who is listening to all those hip-hop and rhythmic stations?

 

[TheBigA]

And as hard as it is to accept for those of us who live and die radio - an enormous percentage of them never even turn on terrestrial radio.
You aren't going to have much success programming to people who don't listen.

That's interesting. Do you have any research to back that up?

Here's a quote from Edison Research. They put out a study last year on Gen Z, which is young people from age 13 to 24:

AM/FM radio’s reach among Gen Z is high (55%), according to Share of Ear® information from Edison Research.

Probably bigger than you thought. They don't have to "turn on a terrestrial radio" to listen to it.

Now let's look at the age spread of people who listen to Rhythmic radio, according to the RAB:

18-24: 22%
25-34: 30%
35-44: 23%
45-54: 14%
Over 55: 9%

As far as race/ethnicity: 45% are white, 27% are black, and 37% are Hispanic.

So those are the facts about who listens to rhythmic formats on FM radio. These are from certified scientific studies.

 

[philsirkin]

That's interesting. Do you have any research to back that up?

Here's a quote from Edison Research. They put out a study last year on Gen Z, which is young people from age 13 to 24:



Probably bigger than you thought. They don't have to "turn on a terrestrial radio" to listen to it.

Now let's look at the age spread of people who listen to Rhythmic radio, according to the RAB:

18-24: 22%
25-34: 30%
35-44: 23%
45-54: 14%
Over 55: 9%

As far as race/ethnicity: 45% are white, 27% are black, and 37% are Hispanic.

So those are the facts about who listens to rhythmic formats on FM radio. These are from certified scientific studies.

The summary (courtesy of RadioInsight) of the study tells a more interesting story. Emphasis and parentheticals are mine.

"However the study notes that these Gen Z listeners spend 50% less of their total share of time listening to AM/FM radio than the average 13+ population meaning they spend less time with radio than older generations. They also mostly listen to AM/FM in the car with 50% of their listening coming in vehicles (perhaps, in part, when their parents are driving and have the radio on?)
The study also notes that these 13-24 year-olds use a radio receiver 50% less than the average 13+ population, and they use their phones for listening 75% more than the average 13+ population with 58% more of their total share of time listening to streaming audio than the average 13+ population. Their share of YouTube listening, which is surveyed only for music and music videos, is 98% higher than the average 13+ population."

I have also found that anecdotal interviews can shed almost as much light on some issues as studies prepared for the radio industry which desperately needs "good news."
I have a 14-year old, and neither she nor any of her friends listen to the radio for music. I have seven nieces and nephews between the ages of 13-24, and none of them - and none of their friends that they're aware of - listen to the radio for music. Most often, they hear a song on TikTok and if they want to hear more, they go to YT or a music streaming service on their phone.
I'm not claiming in any way that is "definitive data" - and I am NOT saying that NO kids listen to the radio.
But it does shape my overall impression, which is this:
When boomers and Gen X were growing up, they were glued to the radio (and MTV once it was available). For Gen Z, terrestrial radio is an afterthought, at best.

 

[TheBigA]

"However the study notes that these Gen Z listeners spend 50% less of their total share of time listening to AM/FM radio than the average 13+ population meaning they spend less time with radio than older generations. They also mostly listen to AM/FM in the car with 50% of their listening coming in vehicles (perhaps, in part, when their parents are driving and have the radio on?)

Of course! As I clearly said, people don't have to turn on a radio in order to listen, and that's the case with Gen Z. If YOU had other options when you were their age, would you have ignored them and stayed devoted to your transistor? I doubt it. Boomers were devoted to their radios because they had no choice. Now they do. Same with their kids. That doesn't mean they don't occasionally also use radio when it's easy and convenient. Of course phones are more prevalent than radios. They're simply not as available today as they were 50 years ago. That has nothing to do with people listening, and they listen where they can. We also see that a portion of the population is streaming AM/FM radio stations on their phone or smart speaker. That is likely where we're going.

When boomers and Gen X were growing up, they were glued to the radio (and MTV once it was available). For Gen Z, terrestrial radio is an afterthought, at best.

How is that relevant now? See my comment above. The minute MTV became available, you spent less time with radio. The minute you could make your own mix cassettes, that's what you listened to. Should radio companies simply shut their stations down and go out of business because they don't have the ears of every teenager? Keep in mind commercial radio doesn't target teens. They target 25 to 54, and Gen Z isn't there yet. We'll see how their behavior changes as they get older and have responsibilities. We'll see how they feel about paying the bills or privacy issues when it comes to subscribing to radio services. How do they feel about giving their credit card number to big tech? We'll see.

 

[Big Bunny]

The pros can get the detailed references if useful, but as a listener I believe there are lots of examples of "AR done right" that could be used as justification to do the same here in Boston. There certainly seems to be some history and demographics to support harder and more current rock.

Part of the problem is that the currently most popular rock product seems to be weak sauce. It is a bit bland and there is a lot of "sameness" to it. It's not edgy, it's not differentiated, it's not dangerous and it won't piss off your parents. Shinedown, Seether, Halestorm, Volbeat, Breaking Benjamin, Five Finger Death Punch, Three Days Grace...it used to be called "girl rock" among the fan base. Not a terrible stigma (although not a compliment), just a nod to the fact that it is something your girlfriend would tolerate or maybe even like.

There are of course more interesting/differentiated/harder bands out there that could/should get some reasonable airtime - Slipknot (next year's classic rock, haha), Ice Nine Kills, Atreyu, Coheed & Cambria. I'd have to do research to find more because they don't get played on the radio here in Boston Those are/would need to get sprinkled in with a greater or lesser dose, along with 90's and earlier rock, depending on the appetite and tolerance of the audience...the recipe is what the new WAAF would need to figure out. Maybe we need Gordon Ramsay to come in and do a Radio Station Nightmares episode.

 

[TheBigA]

Those are/would need to get sprinkled in with a greater or lesser dose, along with 90's and earlier rock, depending on the appetite and tolerance of the audience...the recipe is what the new WAAF would need to figure out.

The right approach would be the one that attracts a consensus large audience that the station can sell to advertisers. Otherwise, fans can hear their favorite bands on Spotify. Radio is not in the music distribution business. If listeners find what they want on their phones, and are willing to pay the fee or give up their personal info, then that's the way that works for them. Radio stations only make money when advertisers buy commercials. The rest of the time is spent getting the advertising. If that means Rumba or Rhythmic, then that's what it means. The other approach is non-commercial stations such as WERS.

 

[Big Bunny]

Wait...radio stations need advertisers to make money???!!! Such amaze...

So there are a dozen radio stations in the US that do just what was described with AR. Go forth and figure.

 

[TheBigA]

So there are a dozen radio stations in the US that do just what was described with AR. Go forth and figure.

It depends on what you call "AR." Those stations for the most part are heritage stations with a heritage morning show. Am I right?

A lot of the ratings, and also the revenue, come from the heritage morning show. That was likely the case at WAAF.

 

[leethalweapon]

When WBOS was the only alternative game in town, it rarely had decent numbers, if ever.

Towards the end, it was more "classic alternative"...

 

[CTListener]

I have also found that anecdotal interviews can shed almost as much light on some issues as studies prepared for the radio industry which desperately needs "good news."

I'm guessing that anecdotal interviews that do not support your theories on a given subject are dismissed with a wave of the hand and a curt "You're full of it."

 

[TheBigA]

I'm guessing that anecdotal interviews that do not support your theories on a given subject are dismissed with a wave of the hand and a curt "You're full of it."

I received an email today from a college with a list of all their graduating seniors looking for job opportunities. Several specifically said they were looking for work in radio. All had worked at both the college station and interned at local commercial stations. So perhaps Gen Z doesn't have the passion the boomers had for radio, but they're not opposed to seeking employment in what some might call a "dying business." This is why I'm not interested in anecdotal research. I get too many resumes from the very group that supposedly doesn't even know about radio.

 

[CTListener]

I received an email today from a college with a list of all their graduating seniors looking for job opportunities. Several specifically said they were looking for work in radio. All had worked at both the college station and interned at local commercial stations. So perhaps Gen Z doesn't have the passion the boomers had for radio, but they're not opposed to seeking employment in what some might call a "dying business." This is why I'm not interested in anecdotal research. I get too many resumes from the very group that supposedly doesn't even know about radio.

But isn't your noting how many college seniors send you resumes and telling us about it a form of anecdotal research?

 

[TheBigA]

But isn't your noting how many college seniors send you resumes and telling us about it a form of anecdotal research?

Ha! Gotcha!

 

[philsirkin]

I'm guessing that anecdotal interviews that do not support your theories on a given subject are dismissed with a wave of the hand and a curt "You're full of it."

No, they're greeted with a "wow, that's a surprise." It's why we do (or in my case, did) music testing.

 

[philsirkin]

I received an email today from a college with a list of all their graduating seniors looking for job opportunities. Several specifically said they were looking for work in radio. All had worked at both the college station and interned at local commercial stations. So perhaps Gen Z doesn't have the passion the boomers had for radio, but they're not opposed to seeking employment in what some might call a "dying business." This is why I'm not interested in anecdotal research. I get too many resumes from the very group that supposedly doesn't even know about radio.

Not going to get into a back-and-forth, but I didn't say "no one" in that age group listens to radio.
It's no different than when I asked college classes in the late 80s/early 90s how many of them listened to AM radio. A few did, and they were (understandably) sports fans.
I never said none of them listen. I said most of them don't. That's why my "anecdotal research" and the summary of the Edison study, saying "Gen Z listeners spend 50% less of their total share of time listening to AM/FM radio than the average 13+ population" align with each other. I said "an enormous percentage," which in the historical context of radio listening, I stand by.

 

[TheBigA]

I never said none of them listen. I said most of them don't.

I understand that, and I'm not saying that all of them listen, or that listenership and loyalty is unchanged from where it was 30-40 years ago. I'm also not saying that people don't use other devices or other services to hear music. Yes I know the numbers of people who subscribe to the various streaming services.

What I also see, and this is documented in other studies as well as Nielsen, is that people do both. They stream when they want to hear specific songs they have in their collection, and they hear the radio when it's available and on. We also know from Nielsen that there are people who will SAY they don't listen to radio, but actually do as detected by the PPM device. It may not be their radio. It may be their parent's radio in the car, it may be their friend's radio, it may be a co-worker's radio, or it may be a radio in a store or office that they can hear. All of that counts as listening, and plays a part in why people will answer one way in an anecdotal poll, yet show up in PPM.

Once again, I understand that at one time, the radio was part of people's friendship circle. They went to bed with their transistor. Now they are more likely to go to bed with their phone. That's a device issue, and radio companies are not in the device business. In the old days of radio, RCA owned radio stations, record companies, and electronics manufacturing, so it was in their best interest to get people to listen to music on RCA radios. All of that is gone, and radios are mostly made in China. As a result, radio technology has been basically unchanged in 25 years. Meanwhile Apple comes out with new phones every year. And like everyone else, I want the newest most exciting new device. Radio is not doing that, and it's why radio stations are pushing their streaming services, their podcasting, and their smart speaker information.

So getting back to your original statement about why radio "programs to people who don't listen," my response is they program to get the demographics that their advertisers want. And some of them will listen. At the same time, radio has formats that appeal to the boomers, the people who grew up with radio, and they also listen to those formats and stations in large numbers. It's not a one-or-the-other thing, And they don't always listen to what they say they listen to, or what you'd expect them to listen to. I'm surprised at the number of boomers who want to hear current music. I'm surprised at the number of teens who listen to classic rock. And all of that goes against the grain of most anecdotal research.

My view is that music taste is becoming more and more "balkanized." That's a process that began 30 years ago, and has just intensified with every generation. A lot of this is coming from the music industry itself. We're already at a point where there are fewer and fewer musical formats that will attract the size audience we need to make it profitable. That's why there's no commercial alternative or active rock station in Boston. The music taste has become too splintered. That will start to extend to other formats. I believe that radio companies already know that they have to develop content that they own, and that means content other than music. So that to me is the future of radio.

 

[Least]

I'm guessing that anecdotal interviews that do not support your theories on a given subject are dismissed with a wave of the hand and a curt "You're full of it."

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that people use a statement or statemements from one or some to justify the mindset of an entire population. Anecdotes give qualitative research a bad name. True qualitative research aims to cover as much of a population through as much of a rounded sample as possible, but when your population becomes the size of Boston radio market, true qualitative research becomes nearly impossible to run, given the time frame of turning around that a company is looking for when making such a decision.

Even then, scholars debate the validity of qualitative research, because sample sizes can't come anywhere near a confidence level of that gathered in quantitative research.

Quantitative: You conduct surveys and run an analysis of all responses to find your answer. In other words, I send out a survey of radio listeners, put their responses into a computer, then have a statistical program run my analysis. The only drawback is waiting to get responses. Your sample can be in the thousands, as the raw data is inputted into an algorithm. Quantitative gives us a sample that yields an answer with confidence.

Qualitative: 1. You can conduct a focus group and/or interview, which will require you to sit with every participant, ask the questions, take notes, record and transcribe the conversation, then run an analysis, coding every statement through multiple cycles of coding. For a sample of 20 people, we're talking months to do the whole cycle. One interview alone may take an hour, and it's most likely that you will have follow-up questions. There's another hour for a second round.
2. You can conduct a case study, where you spend months observing and interviewing a sample of people. But, doing so with a confident sample size would be years to decades of research. By the time you found the answer, the data would be outdated, and people's preferences would change. True qualitative research is best when examining a small population. If I wanted to know the listening preferences of the six people living in Centralia, PA, then I could run true qualitative research.

I say that as someone educated in both methods, yet works far more with qualitative research. Big A and David would explain it better, but they run (most likely) a mixed-method study with heavy emphasis on the qualitative side of the research. I'm sure they ask questions to get a better understanding of why, but I would suspect that they run statistical software to help find their answer.

In the end, anecdotal evidence is only good to tell me what the one or few people think. It doesn't lead to an understanding of what the whole group feels. People do this in all areas of life, and it's a huge problem, because we make definitive statements based on what "our five friends" said. Even 100 people saying something doesn't equate to the overall population. It's the same as having fun with percentages. People would say that 98% of people who catch COVID survive. True, but 2% of a billion people equates to 200 million people. Then on the flip side, imagine having an argument with a school district administrator who was upset about 50% of a particular school's fourth grade failing an assessment; then finding out that the school was an alternative school for kids with special needs, and the fourth grade was comprised of two students.

Anecdotes and gross generalization of percentages are like declaring the state of a forest based on some trees. "It's a forest of birch trees!" Why do you say that? "Because these trees right here are birch trees!"

 

[inorm99]

Interesting yawn stuff.

Towards the end, it was more "classic alternative"...

Thank you David for answering my question.

Spinning the dial right now, I am getting the perception that not only does WZLX do a much better job, but they seem to have a larger playlist, and more modern also!

For example, WZLX within the past 15 minutes played Slaughter "I Will Remember You." On the other hand, within only the past 5 minutes, WBOS just played Iron Maiden "Iron Man."

WZLX just played "Paronoid" by Iron Maiden instead. Very presently, they are playing "Flagpole Stita" by Harvey Danger. That seems much more recent than what WBOS plays. It all seems this way anyhow.