Here's an article from RadioWorld about how radio needs to reduce its
clutter.

http://www.rwonline.com/reference-ro...i_sept_1.shtml

This is a strong pet peeve of mine. As a one-time radio GM, our stations
held firm on clutter and price, but we were undermined by the competition
and our customers. Of course, my argument was still right... that too many
commercials is an incredible turnoff factor for listeners, and if people
don't listen, no one hears the spots. And our stations remained numbers one
and two, so I know we were doing something right.

Now that I am a listener, I am one of the first to turn away from a station
that plays too many spots, especially if the spots are totally uncreative,
boring and repetitive. Sometimes stations play the same spot twice during a
single set! How effective can that be to that customer?

Radio has become ridiculously redundant.

On 4 Sep 2004 03:31:37 GMT, "lsmyer" wrote:

Here's an article from RadioWorld about how radio needs to reduce its
clutter.

http://www.rwonline.com/reference-ro...i_sept_1.shtml

This is a strong pet peeve of mine. As a one-time radio GM, our stations
held firm on clutter and price, but we were undermined by the competition
and our customers. Of course, my argument was still right... that too many
commercials is an incredible turnoff factor for listeners, and if people
don't listen, no one hears the spots. And our stations remained numbers one
and two, so I know we were doing something right.

Now that I am a listener, I am one of the first to turn away from a station
that plays too many spots, especially if the spots are totally uncreative,
boring and repetitive. Sometimes stations play the same spot twice during a
single set! How effective can that be to that customer?

It's really very easy to maintain a limited spot load -- when you
sell out, you raise your rates to the point where you're not quite
sold out...and keep doing that, over and over. This has the added
benefit of driving marginal businesses and slow-paying accounts off
your station and onto your cheaper competition. Salespeople make more
money with less work. Everybody wins. Once upon a time most
successful stations did this. Yes, you have to cut rates in slack
periods, but if managed correctly the overall trend is always up.

But then came the entrance of the huge publicly-traded corporations,
and Wall Street demands for revenue and cash flow increases that
wildly exceeded the rate of economic growth. I know of one major
company that insisted on 15% annual cash flow increases in a region
with 2% economic growth. This is not sustainable for more than one or
two quarters. But without such numbers, the stock would get hammered.
And some managers, such as one recently departed major figure whose
name will go unmentioned here, were so focused on the immediate
quarterly numbers that they simply refused to consider the long-term
impact on the industry. Somehow we forgot concepts like demand-based
pricing (a staple of the travel industry for decades) and grid rate
cards.

If it takes a Clear Channel to get the industry to wake up, then so be
it. The downside is that a lot of people will pay for this with their
jobs, as I'm sure short-term cash flow budgets won't change and the
cost-cutting that results will be brutal.

Mark Howell

This is a strong pet peeve of mine. As a one-time radio GM, our stations
held firm on clutter and price, but we were undermined by the competition
and our customers. Of course, my argument was still right... that too many
commercials is an incredible turnoff factor for listeners, and if people
don't listen, no one hears the spots.

No ****. And if you have too many spots, all you have to do is double the price.
Half of the advertisers will drop, the other half will pay their share, and you just
cut half of the spots from your station. So simple, yet many are too afraid to
turn down any advertiser to do it. We did it and it works just fine. Better to
turn away advertisers than listeners! If you have listeners, you will always have
advertisers, but you don't get listeners from having more advertisers, you get LESS
listeners.

Now that I am a listener, I am one of the first to turn away from a station
that plays too many spots, especially if the spots are totally uncreative,
boring and repetitive.

This is the problem with those in radio management, they never just ask themselves
what THEY would listen to. All you had to do is ask the DJs what they thought, as
they are the ones that listen to the station longer than anyone. If they get sick
of a song or spot, it means time to drop it!

Sometimes stations play the same spot twice during a
single set! How effective can that be to that customer?

I never understood that. If I was the advertiser, I would much rather have had the
extra spot play in another hour or on another station than waste two in the same
break. Besides, it ****es listeners off, and doing that means people will remember
to NOT buy your product, just as they never buy from companies that send spam or
telemarket.

Radio has become ridiculously redundant.

Haven't been able to listen to it in many years.

It's really very easy to maintain a limited spot load -- when you
sell out, you raise your rates to the point where you're not quite
sold out...and keep doing that, over and over.

Wow, someone else finally figured this out. Good for you. People I would explain
this simple logic to, would be too afraid to try it because they never want to lose any
advertiser and would rather have lots of advertisers and spots and low pay, than a few
advertisers paying a lot more.

Problem is, if you are programming ****, you can only charge $5 a spot.

FIRST you get good programming. THEN you have a small sales staff of 3 or 4 people to
handle incoming calls from Budweiser, McDonalds, etc. If you have to go out and get
advertisers, then your programming sucks.

This has the added
benefit of driving marginal businesses and slow-paying accounts off
your station and onto your cheaper competition. Salespeople make more
money with less work. Everybody wins. Once upon a time most
successful stations did this. Yes, you have to cut rates in slack
periods, but if managed correctly the overall trend is always up.

Finally someone here that talks some sense.

"Truth" wrote in message ...

No ****. And if you have too many spots, all you have to do is double
the price.
Half of the advertisers will drop, the other half will pay their share,
and you just
cut half of the spots from your station.

Advertising is sold by delivery of audience. If you cut spot load by 50%,
and do not increase listenership, your revenue decreases by half (assuming
you are selling all your inventory).

So simple, yet many are too afraid to
turn down any advertiser to do it. We did it and it works just fine.
Better to
turn away advertisers than listeners! If you have listeners, you will
always have
advertisers, but you don't get listeners from having more advertisers,
you get LESS
listeners.

There are simple metrics applied to the buying of ad time, and they relate
to the cost per listener, experessed as cost per thousand, cost per point,
etc. Simply reducing spot loads does not improve the rate on the remaining
accounts.

This is the problem with those in radio management, they never just ask
themselves
what THEY would listen to. All you had to do is ask the DJs what they
thought, as
they are the ones that listen to the station longer than anyone. If
they get sick
of a song or spot, it means time to drop it!

Actually, a DJ listens far more per week than all but the most agressive
listeners. The best way to find out what listeners want is to ask the
listeners. Which is what most major stations do.

Sometimes stations play the same spot twice during a
single set! How effective can that be to that customer?

I never understood that.

It's researched and very effective in increasing memorability through
repetition. As are bookends.

If I was the advertiser, I would much rather have had the
extra spot play in another hour or on another station than waste two in
the same
break.

Generally, if this happens, the advertiser has paid extra to make it happen.
Because it works so well.

"Truth" wrote in message ...
It's really very easy to maintain a limited spot load -- when you
sell out, you raise your rates to the point where you're not quite
sold out...and keep doing that, over and over.

Wow, someone else finally figured this out. Good for you. People I
would explain
this simple logic to, would be too afraid to try it because they never
want to lose any
advertiser and would rather have lots of advertisers and spots and low
pay, than a few
advertisers paying a lot more.

Many station groups have long limited commercial percentages to well below
what is considered excessive. There is nothing new in this. Oddly, back in
the 50's and 60's when many claim such great radio was done, the FCC had to
actually create an implied guideline of 18 minutes an hour. Most stations
today are well below that, and one I work with are in the 10 minute range
consistently.

Problem is, if you are programming ****, you can only charge $5 a spot.

FIRST you get good programming. THEN you have a small sales staff of 3
or 4 people to
handle incoming calls from Budweiser, McDonalds, etc. If you have to
go out and get
advertisers, then your programming sucks.

Advertisers do not call stations, especially big ones. Radio does not work
this way, advertising does not work this way, marketing does not work this
way

This has the added
benefit of driving marginal businesses and slow-paying accounts off
your station and onto your cheaper competition. Salespeople make more
money with less work. Everybody wins. Once upon a time most
successful stations did this. Yes, you have to cut rates in slack
periods, but if managed correctly the overall trend is always up.

Finally someone here that talks some sense.

This is nothing new. I ran a top rated FM in the late 60's that ran 2
minutes of spots an hour. It billed as much as any station in the market.
There are plenty of examples of this.

"lsmyer" wrote in
:



Radio has become ridiculously redundant.




OK, I know all this. Commercials are life and they suck. Now about about
this: IMAGING! I am so sick and tired of hearing all this junk that spews
out which "images" a station. I think some is good, but not all the time!
This is part of the clutter that I cannot stand. I must be old fashioned
on this one.

I.

Radio has become ridiculously redundant.




OK, I know all this. Commercials are life and they suck. Now about about
this: IMAGING! I am so sick and tired of hearing all this junk that spews
out which "images" a station. I think some is good, but not all the time!
This is part of the clutter that I cannot stand. I must be old fashioned
on this one.

Good to see some people with sense are finally coming around here.

In article , Truth wrote:

Radio has become ridiculously redundant.




OK, I know all this. Commercials are life and they suck. Now about about
this: IMAGING! I am so sick and tired of hearing all this junk that spews
out which "images" a station. I think some is good, but not all the time!
This is part of the clutter that I cannot stand. I must be old fashioned
on this one.

Good to see some people with sense are finally coming around here.

With all the off topic cross posting you have done most people think you
are an idiot and have you in their kill files. Try sticking to one group.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
Mark Howell wrote:


But then came the entrance of the huge publicly-traded corporations,
and Wall Street demands for revenue and cash flow increases that
wildly exceeded the rate of economic growth. I know of one major
company that insisted on 15% annual cash flow increases in a region
with 2% economic growth. This is not sustainable for more than one or
two quarters. But without such numbers, the stock would get hammered.
And some managers, such as one recently departed major figure whose
name will go unmentioned here, were so focused on the immediate
quarterly numbers that they simply refused to consider the long-term
impact on the industry. Somehow we forgot concepts like demand-based
pricing (a staple of the travel industry for decades) and grid rate
cards.


It's easy to see if you follow the news regularly that the above is a
trend in all kinds of businesses. In many it leads to constant
"restructuring" (layoffs) to eek out a bit more profit, even though the
company is thriving without the restructuring. Our masters have lost all
sense that they need to keep their greed in some kind of check.

Leonard

--
"Everything that rises must converge"
--Flannery O'Connor