Colorado Media Newsroom
November 16th, 2023, 12:31 PM
From Radio Insight:
I watch the monthly ratings closely for the radio stations that I work with. At some stations, I see weekly numbers, and I try not to let my mood rise and fall too much because one metered user is at their summer house (or whatever reason the numbers bounce around). I still care a lot about clients? ratings shares, and I want them to rank higher than their rivals. I also still want to be able to see shares, which is frustrating with Nielsen?s partial results here and Canada?s lack of publicly released ratings altogether.
But now I think the battle for share is becoming a distraction, or a diversion, from radio?s larger issues.
A few weeks ago, I suggested that the need for broadcasters to fix their spotload issues had become the first priority for broadcasters. (https://radioinsight.com/blogs/260096/the-first-thing-that-radio-must-fix/) Spotload was something that affected every other issue. Plus, a decade of looking at all of radio?s issues holistically had just left many people overwhelmed. Most of radio?s post-PPM efforts are now focused on an attempt to get more usage from the existing audience. Fewer interruptions and more content would seem to be a logical extension of that.*
That column prompted a comment and question from a reader. (https://radioinsight.com/blogs/260096/the-first-thing-that-radio-must-fix/#comments) ?If spotload really is the white whale of radio, then why aren?t public radio stations No. 1 by a wide margin in every market?? That?s always a fun question to ponder, especially since radio?s boldest public attempts to deal with spotload haven?t always paid off. The long-gone KQLZ (Pirate Radio) Los Angeles went after KIIS with one unit an hour in 1989. KZPS (Lonestar 92.5) Dallas tried sponsorships-only in 2007.
I think there are times when spotload is making a difference in shares. KMVQ (99.7 Now FM) San Francisco is one of CHR?s few current winners. There are 4-6 minutes of spots in some hours, and even the heavy hours (10 minutes) are the same as some other stations? light hours. But there are also market-leading stations whose PPM machinations to free up, say, a commercial-free workday kickoff are paid for with 16 minutes of spots in other hours.
And that?s why we have to take this dialogue somewhere else. It?s still very gratifying to win through spotload games. But shuffling spotload is increasingly becoming like shuffling deckchairs. If it doesn?t address radio?s decreased usage, (https://jacobsmedia.com/where-did-all-those-p4s-and-p5s-go/) winning in share is in danger of becoming a participation trophy ? cheering to those who receive it, not impressive to sponsors or potential listeners.*
I?ve felt that certain demo stories, particularly 18-34 numbers, have been participation trophies for a while. During the PPM era, we?ve seen Alternative, R&B/Hip-Hop, and now Top 40/CHR radio stations that still lead 18-34 rank, but are in the three-share range 6-plus or 12-plus because 18-34 listening is so diminished. To me, there?s no ranker story that makes diminished usage less concerning.
Recently, a radio friend was on his first trip in a while to a major market. He heard a successful station in an Uber during one of its massive spotload hours. I usually listen to this station during different hours. He got out of the car and asked me, ?How can anybody stand to listen to them?? (To be fair, the Uber driver did leave the station on long enough for my friend to know it was a long stopset.) The station in question is a market-leader, but this wasn?t a winning experience for the station. And a lot of the radio exposure for our least-enthusiastic users is under similar circumstances.
If stations believe that juggling their spots can drive PPM increases, how can simply reducing spots not lead to PPM gains as well? Beyond that, I also believe that lower spotload will make addressing radio?s other challenges easier. It is an integral part of making streaming more appealing; otherwise, radio?s frequent device promos are just sending radio to a space where our competitors exist too. If we are able to market, it allows us to give listeners more of what they came for.*
In one of the final comments on the spotload column, consultant Tracy Johnson points out, ?A top-20 market has just lost national buys, not on a station [but] in the entire market, because only one station in the city reached the AQH threshold to justify a buy. It has nothing to do with share.? Even if spotload is only one potential facet of a winning station, broadcasters can?t afford to do the other things that help them win if listening levels lead to a continuing decline in revenue.
In the early ?00s, supporters of network radio and voice-tracking often felt that the success of Howard Stern and Steve Harvey inherently shut down any discussion of localism at radio. For years, the ?live and local? rallying cry was often mocked, and for most of those dismissing it, one syndicated success story was enough. But we now have plenty of evidence that syndication doesn?t always win either. And using Stern, Steve, or Seacrest as an weapon against localism didn?t help the medium.
In his subsequent comments, my reader adds, ?I?m not saying spotload isn?t a problem. It is a problem.? Since we?re agreed on that, the ?shouldn?t NPR always win?? question is fun, but similarly distracting. NPR isn?t for everybody, but it often does well, and expecting it to always be No. 1 is a very high bar. The same goes for the Christian ACs that have surprised the industry in the PPM era. Conversely, the station that plays spotload games doesn?t always win. Often, it has a 3 share. Can we give up on PPM games now and focus on the real prize?
more (https://radioinsight.com/blogs/260882/has-ratings-share-become-radios-participation-trophy/)
I watch the monthly ratings closely for the radio stations that I work with. At some stations, I see weekly numbers, and I try not to let my mood rise and fall too much because one metered user is at their summer house (or whatever reason the numbers bounce around). I still care a lot about clients? ratings shares, and I want them to rank higher than their rivals. I also still want to be able to see shares, which is frustrating with Nielsen?s partial results here and Canada?s lack of publicly released ratings altogether.
But now I think the battle for share is becoming a distraction, or a diversion, from radio?s larger issues.
A few weeks ago, I suggested that the need for broadcasters to fix their spotload issues had become the first priority for broadcasters. (https://radioinsight.com/blogs/260096/the-first-thing-that-radio-must-fix/) Spotload was something that affected every other issue. Plus, a decade of looking at all of radio?s issues holistically had just left many people overwhelmed. Most of radio?s post-PPM efforts are now focused on an attempt to get more usage from the existing audience. Fewer interruptions and more content would seem to be a logical extension of that.*
That column prompted a comment and question from a reader. (https://radioinsight.com/blogs/260096/the-first-thing-that-radio-must-fix/#comments) ?If spotload really is the white whale of radio, then why aren?t public radio stations No. 1 by a wide margin in every market?? That?s always a fun question to ponder, especially since radio?s boldest public attempts to deal with spotload haven?t always paid off. The long-gone KQLZ (Pirate Radio) Los Angeles went after KIIS with one unit an hour in 1989. KZPS (Lonestar 92.5) Dallas tried sponsorships-only in 2007.
I think there are times when spotload is making a difference in shares. KMVQ (99.7 Now FM) San Francisco is one of CHR?s few current winners. There are 4-6 minutes of spots in some hours, and even the heavy hours (10 minutes) are the same as some other stations? light hours. But there are also market-leading stations whose PPM machinations to free up, say, a commercial-free workday kickoff are paid for with 16 minutes of spots in other hours.
And that?s why we have to take this dialogue somewhere else. It?s still very gratifying to win through spotload games. But shuffling spotload is increasingly becoming like shuffling deckchairs. If it doesn?t address radio?s decreased usage, (https://jacobsmedia.com/where-did-all-those-p4s-and-p5s-go/) winning in share is in danger of becoming a participation trophy ? cheering to those who receive it, not impressive to sponsors or potential listeners.*
I?ve felt that certain demo stories, particularly 18-34 numbers, have been participation trophies for a while. During the PPM era, we?ve seen Alternative, R&B/Hip-Hop, and now Top 40/CHR radio stations that still lead 18-34 rank, but are in the three-share range 6-plus or 12-plus because 18-34 listening is so diminished. To me, there?s no ranker story that makes diminished usage less concerning.
Recently, a radio friend was on his first trip in a while to a major market. He heard a successful station in an Uber during one of its massive spotload hours. I usually listen to this station during different hours. He got out of the car and asked me, ?How can anybody stand to listen to them?? (To be fair, the Uber driver did leave the station on long enough for my friend to know it was a long stopset.) The station in question is a market-leader, but this wasn?t a winning experience for the station. And a lot of the radio exposure for our least-enthusiastic users is under similar circumstances.
If stations believe that juggling their spots can drive PPM increases, how can simply reducing spots not lead to PPM gains as well? Beyond that, I also believe that lower spotload will make addressing radio?s other challenges easier. It is an integral part of making streaming more appealing; otherwise, radio?s frequent device promos are just sending radio to a space where our competitors exist too. If we are able to market, it allows us to give listeners more of what they came for.*
In one of the final comments on the spotload column, consultant Tracy Johnson points out, ?A top-20 market has just lost national buys, not on a station [but] in the entire market, because only one station in the city reached the AQH threshold to justify a buy. It has nothing to do with share.? Even if spotload is only one potential facet of a winning station, broadcasters can?t afford to do the other things that help them win if listening levels lead to a continuing decline in revenue.
In the early ?00s, supporters of network radio and voice-tracking often felt that the success of Howard Stern and Steve Harvey inherently shut down any discussion of localism at radio. For years, the ?live and local? rallying cry was often mocked, and for most of those dismissing it, one syndicated success story was enough. But we now have plenty of evidence that syndication doesn?t always win either. And using Stern, Steve, or Seacrest as an weapon against localism didn?t help the medium.
In his subsequent comments, my reader adds, ?I?m not saying spotload isn?t a problem. It is a problem.? Since we?re agreed on that, the ?shouldn?t NPR always win?? question is fun, but similarly distracting. NPR isn?t for everybody, but it often does well, and expecting it to always be No. 1 is a very high bar. The same goes for the Christian ACs that have surprised the industry in the PPM era. Conversely, the station that plays spotload games doesn?t always win. Often, it has a 3 share. Can we give up on PPM games now and focus on the real prize?
more (https://radioinsight.com/blogs/260882/has-ratings-share-become-radios-participation-trophy/)