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. 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. “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, 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?
Sean, no argument that commercial loads are a problem. There’s an old saying that the best way to eat an elephant (in this case “white whale”) is one bite at a time. When George Johns addressed the issue in Indianapolis he made the spots better. There are more ways to fix the issue(s), but few are even trying. So. Fix the spotload, Easy. Go after better “content”. Not as easy. Draw up a decent plan to measure your success and get management to agree to it. (Difficult.) The ingredients of a successful station are the same in 2023 as they were in 1963. There are more choices now (duh), and the road to success is more crowded than ever. Tackle the monsters in the way to success one monster at a time. Anyone got a better idea?
As both radio professional AND advertiser, allow me to provide some insight on this issue. In the 80s when spot loads were about six minutes an hour on stations I advertised with, a drive time spot was $270 on a highly rated CHR. Commercials were very effective and response was immediate. By 2005, spot loads had increased to sixteen minutes an hour, two eight minute sets, and I was paying $900 a week for 70 spots on the same station with the same “ratings” spread throughout all day parts
Unfortunately, listeners easily learned the clock and when to tune out and tune back in to avoid commercials. My ad buy, even with the increased spot load of SEVENTY spots per week, failed to get a response. Needless to say, I had to find other methods to promote my business. Like so many advertisers, I shifted my ad budget to online marketing where I could speak directly to my audience.
Here in LA back in the late 90s the Stern show was playing a TWENTY-FOUR minute stop set. When I spoke with the PD about the insanity of believing listeners would sit through 24 minutes of commercials, he told me that his research indicated people loved listening to commercials. Unsurprisingly, Sterns ratings collapsed and the show left the market.
Radio has whored itself out to the degree that spots no longer have either impact, or value, for advertisers. And spot loads have alienated an entire generation of young listeners that have easy access to commercial free content that they can control as they wish. Which is why nearly all of the top ten stations here in Los Angeles cater to audiences over FIFTY YEARS OF AGE!
Times change, but radio hasn’t. It’s still operating with hundred year old technology and has failed to properly embrace the Internet as a delivery device while trying to protect a now very dated content delivery system.
I hate to write of so much doom and gloom, but the current radio business model is not long for this world. Time marches on.
It should be pointed out that the reason Stern had 24-minute commercial breaks was because his station in New York–and therefore, every other station that carried his show, because he was live–let him get away with talking past the breaks so that they had to stop him because they were 90 minutes behind on breaks. Don’t blame the PD at the station that you confronted–blame Karmazin for not making Stern tow the line on so many things. I’m sure NPR stations (back then, the only news-talk on FM) appreciated those audience spikes for “Morning Edition” during those marathons.
I am unaware of any CHR with 6 minutes of spots that could charge $270 a spot in drive time. What station were you referring to?
Generally the lowest was 7 and 8 minutes was the norm outside morning drive.
Even the Beautiful Music Stations were running 2 min/unit spotsets with a break every quarter hour.
As someone who’s spent his first 20 years in commercial radio, and the past 25 in public radio, I probably have a good idea of why public radio isn’t always winning based on a lack of stopsets.
1. Public radio (not just NPR News/Talk stations, but ALL of public radio, including music stations like mine) is based on serving underserved audiences. Therefore, most public radio formats (especially music stations) are niche formats, like classical, jazz, triple-A, “college,” etc. The most un-niche public stations are the NPR News/Talk stations, but still niche. Most people who want to listen news/talk are going to the market’s commercial stations. Because……….
2. Most public stations either don’t or can’t (mostly the latter) market themselves effectively. Very few people know the stations even exist, nor do the budgets exist to let them know we’re around. In my market, the NPR News/Talk station and the Triple-A station do some marketing, but not enough to make a difference. It also doesn’t help that 99% of public stations are all clustered between 88 and 92 FM where most listeners never really venture.
3. Image issues are prevalent in public radio. The term “public radio” can no longer be equated with “non-commercial radio.” Ask those who know of “public radio” what public radio is. The answer will almost always be NPR. IOW, “public radio” equals NPR. In the same way, “NPR” equals NPR News.
And no matter how many independent studies are released saying that NPR News is exceedingly non-partisan – and there have been many, there’s no convincing many (most, really) people that is the case. The left won’t listen because NPR News leans too far right. While the right cries out that NPR News leans too far left. Unfortunately, NPR affiliates who aren’t NPR News/Talk stations, those like mine that are music-intensive, carrying a limited slate of NPR TOH newscasts (we run only nine in 24 hours – less on the weekends) and no talk programs, get lumped into that group just by dint of being a “public radio” station.
Many non-NPR-News/Talk stations have dropped NPR TOH for the BBC and other services. Many others refuse to refer to themselves as “public radio,” instead opting for “non-commercial radio,” “listener (or member) supported,” or some other nomenclature. But even that doesn’t necessarily help.
We’re in a PPM market, but when we were diary-driven, our station would get as many NPR mentions as the NPR news/talker. And only some would include some other descriptor to make it obvious they were listening to us – frequency, program or format name, etc. Of those who didn’t, we suspected that many were listening to us rather than the NPR news/talker. Couldn’t really prove it though.
So while commercial radio has it’s issues, public radio faces it’s own issues. While spotload isn’t one of them, I’d argue that the issues above are enough to put us in the same boat…
BRILLIANT article today on how radio has itself decimated radio’s audience “rating”, cutting radio’s total listenership in half, and making comparisons of station “share” a fools errand. Twenty years ago the only competition radio had for music listening was a CD player or iTunes. Today radio competes with Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube Music, Sirius (40m subs), and the popular apps which now occupy radio’s former TSL, like Tik Tok, Facebook, Instagram, and games.
If Putin wanted to create a poison pill to drive people from US radio forever, it would be to introduce 11 minute commercial breaks twice an hour, containing a minimum of 22 units each. Singlehandedly, this has now destroyed radio’s image and appeal for millions of former listeners, especially young people who know how to use IP and mobile.
And for an advertiser hearing his/her commercial five or more minute into the stopset, I’d pull my contract and move it into digital.
Those implementing this obscene listener-killer must not be heavy radio listeners, or it would stop. And they rationalize why young people have no love for radio. Well duh!
Cheers to Michael Martin and Bonneville for holding the line on spot load, forcing the sales team to hold rates and sell commercials for what they are worth instead of giving away the store and killing radio.
jg
PS – For the commenter asking why commercial-free PBS stations haven’t surged, in the Spring, Nielsen Boston University’s WBUR is now ranked #4 and non-comm WGBH follows closely.
So the big story last week was Cume was disappearing. The question was asked where is the P4 and P5 (drive by cume was always my favorite expression) gone.
For those who need a primer (and I hope no one does) Cume and TSL are the 2 factors that determine your share.
And if your Drive By Cume is disappearing, the your TSL should go up, because those listening for only 1 occasion of a couple of minutes pull down your entire Station TSL
So TSL went up as the Drive By Cume disappeared?
Wrong.
Station TSL have dropped significantly over the last 4 years.
An annual decline. Not a 1 year decline.
Let that sink in while one ponders the implications.
In 1990 as I graduated high school, 5 different stations went AC in my town, including the heritage CHR that I grew up listening to. You could punch around the dial and hear the same Michael Bolton song on multiple stations often. I was told (as I was a baby DJ in the biz) that’s because the money is in 25-54 so that’s what we have to do, and I used to joke that I couldn’t wait to turn 25 so I could force others to listen to what I wanted instead of what everyone is playing.
The current disconnect between radio and youth isn’t new – radio has been blowing off the younger end forever. It’s just that radio assumed that as we graduated college and entered the workforce, we’d come back around to listen to radio. Except now we have other choices, so once we were told to buzz off, we didn’t come back. In my day, I had Napster. Today there’s a plethora of options.
And we can pretty much predict how it’s going to go. AM radio is largely dead; the biggest signals are hanging on with sports (if they haven’t moved to FM already) and the rest are either right wing talk targeting 55+ and making either a modest sum or they’re dying, and either way the tower sites are more valuable being turned into Amazon warehouses. It’s not a growth strategy, it’s just squeezing out the last remaining bits of revenue before turning in the license.
On the FM band, it’s again, all skewing older, trying to squeeze out whatever is left. I don’t see a lot of innovation there either. I hear a lot of pay per inquiry spots and barter inventory even on major music stations.
SiriusXM? I give them credit for trying different things. Not all of them do much for me, but there’s some creativity coming out of their shop.
On the digital front, we’ve seen Spotify and Amazon try to mimic radio and give up on it because the returns aren’t there and there’s a limit to how much money they want to light on fire. Apple’s three radio formats are really well produced (even though it’s basically 8 hours repeated around the clock) and the sound quality is superb.
It comes back to the basics: who do we want as our audience? How do they want us to reach them, and what do they want from us? Answer that, then you can focus on how to serve them and make a buck in the process.
Before I graduated college, I ended up working for a guy who was a bit of a lunatic, and he wasn’t afraid to try something out of left field. He also was smart enough to know to pull the plug on a half baked idea before he totally lost his shirt, so the absolutely terrible format he tried to create with the help of a who’s who of consultants was mercifully put down after 6 months of failure. But the thing I took away from working for him was the need to respect the audience. We can’t take them for granted, because once they turn their backs on us they’re gone.
A slightly different comment about spot load: I was just in Austin and spent a lot of time, listening to the top of the hour on most every FM station. While most stations were back to music and did a quick legal ID at the top of the hour, KVET – 98.1 consistently crossed the top of the hour in commercials.
Of course they can do whatever they want, but that is so contrary to what we’ve all been conditioned to do.
I’ve also heard stations that stop at :54 (or whenever) and come back to music with the legal at :00. They also seem to be trying to juggle with sister KASE (and cross-promote with them) so that somebody’s always in music. But I’d still rather stations address spotload by playing fewer commercials.
I had a brief radio career, got into tech support and these days get to hear radio all over as a long-haul trucker. Please indulge a few listener insights.
The worst: I counted a 14-spot stop set before giving up during a syndicated morning show on a powerful FM out of Charleston, SC. Obviously I can’t recall the show or the station because why would I want to? Another worst: The streaming experience on Atlanta’s reincarnated 99x, a station that DEPENDS on streaming due to its C2 (B-grade) signal. I heard the same alt-rock 30-second production audio bed on loop as filler for 3 minutes during a local break. Hello? Is anyone actually air checking these feeds? One more: Audacy’s 60s channel via TuneIn. Opened with 3-4 commercials, then played about 3 great songs before about 3 more commercials, then 2 more excellent songs, then some more commercials. I tuned out for awhile, came back to more commercials first, then heard the SAME songs in the SAME order. Had to clear the TuneIn data cache to get different songs. One more: WLS-FM Chicago. Mostly canned, played-out top 5 eighties hits on endless repeat in claustrophobic over- compressed audio. A sad state of affairs indeed.
Best: The WOW Factor Phoenix, with a great selection of oldies that guarantees “We’re always back to the music within three minutes.” I often counted four or five songs between stop sets and sometimes only a couple of commercials. Love the guarantee. Another great station: WXRT Chicago 93.1. They talk to me, not at me and last time I listened I heard several strong currents and recurrents with instant hooks like “Dial Drunk” interspersed with forgotten radio hits like “Dreaming” by Blondie, Stones’ “Tumbling Dice” and “Love is the Drug” by Roxy Music. Live + Local with reasonable stop sets. Talk about wow! When I lost the signal I switched to Audacy on TuneIn to keep the WXRT vibe going.
Guys, this can be done right. Management needs to talk to people like me. :))
Thanks, Brian. WXRT is always a good experience for me. I love that they still advocate for the music. I can’t remember how good the spotset replacement was, but maybe that’s the point. WOW Factor is great. Unfortunately, they’re geoblocked outside Arizona. I’m looking forward to hearing what WLS-FM sounds like when new PD Todd Cavanah gets settled. I liked WJMK in its K-Hits era when he was programming them, and they had a WLS feel.
Which would hopefully mean a return of jingles. It’s not WLS without the “da-da-da-DAH-DAH” logo.
In Louisiana there are stations on both ends of the spectrum. 104.1 aptly named “the Spot” New Orleans once had a 19 minute stopset during afternoon drive. On the other end, there is a commercial AAA station on the west side of the state that plays zero commercials.
Dear Sean,
I am NOT American but these posts really make me upset because I once really admired about radio jingles in the U.S. and Western world in general – it’s very modern and appealing. But endless complains about stopsets, music repetition and voice breaks as well as talents really make me anxious as I worry if Vietnamese radio would go on the same road like that.
I have been an avid listener of 91fm (vovgiaothong.vn) for several years, and I could give every pros and cons about the station, then why I am really worried about that.
Pros:
– basically sound like 1960s full-service radio in the us, no adherence to “clock hour” (news bulletins are aired “between the programs”, not every hour)
– management don’t care about what the presenters are doing except when saying something vulgar or “politically reactionary”.
(You have to:
– design the poster for the program tonight
– making scripts (if there’s any) by yourself
– managing social media accounts.
– checking if there’s the song the caller requested at that time, if not, you have to respond, either the caller would think about the different songs or the presenter have to suggest a different song instead.
– just talk if someone’s call you and don’t make any prejudice.
– if you want to request the songs, ask them directly from their social media, not the station’s social media)
– each presenters always show different personality when coming on air. A program on the same time would have different presenters on different days of the week, and broadcast live from either Saigon and Hanoi with presenters from all three feeds always have a slot when broadcasting nationally. (P/s: some of them also have their own fanclub and may do some “sweepstakes” within the own fanclubs)
– very regionalist. There are programs and segments explicitly target only Hanoi or Saigon. MekongFM (for Southwestern Vietnam) is also warmly received by local people for its closeness to Southwestern life, from jingles to presentational style, and its programming are always streamed on their Facebook
– musically diverse. Their music choice are perhaps wider than Jack FM or something. If you want a soft Oldies from early 1960s, or the latest hits from 2023, they can offer with no hassle. Even CCM, country, adult standards, or The Magnetic Fields are mixed in. And on weekend evening, “The Nostalgic Songs” with forgotten Vietnamese songs (you can’t even find them on Internet) from late 1930s to 2000 too.
– (overnight, 91fm Saigon and MekongFM only) 60 to 120 minutes of foreign music with only two voiceover “sweepers” and no other clutters/stopsets.
Cons:
– nearly zero in promotion on other media. Radio in Vietnam was very weak because of over-expansion of television, so they don’t but effort in advertising on other media. But hey, I love 91fm promos – it’s sounds a bit lowkey but engaging too!
– (only drivetime) too much stopsets. And commercials on 91fm is crap. But non-drivetime is exact opposite, no more than 1 advert in 12 hours! (excluding own promo)
– prejudice. People thinks 91fm is “traffic”, as it only carry automated/robotic traffic information and nothing else.
(I want to explains more about these to you but this would be overly long – hell, I really wish if I know that you did calling people to review international radio stations. I’m sure 91fm at least could breath a really fresh air to you, provided that you know some Vietnamese, both Northern and Southern).