So Who the $#%$%# Cares About a Slogan Change?

When Radioinsight and Ross on Radio reported last month that a half-dozen iHeart Media stations, including WAXQ (Q104.3) New York, were downplaying the word “Classic Rock” in varying ways, it was one of the most-read ROR columns in recent months. It was also one of the most commented-on — both in the column itself and on Radioinsight’s Facebook page, where readers responded both to this article and to their reportage. Soon, pioneering Classic Rock consultant Fred Jacobs weighed in as well.

“Inside baseball,” said one commenter, expressing a common skepticism that a change like this would make a difference or even register with listeners. In some of those critiques, there was the larger implication that even discussing the adjustment was “inside baseball” too. “Listeners don’t give a s**t about all the dumb things radio worries about,” responded one reader. Another asked why, at this “world on fire” moment in the radio business and beyond, would somebody bother writing about this? 

I always try to anticipate that question, just like I always wonder if you’ll think that the Intriguing Stations of 2025 are intriguing enough. Writing about radio with any degree of enthusiasm now is a willful choice. So is writing about the details of radio programming — and before I chose the word “details” I considered both “intricacies” and “minutiae” — in a broadcast environment that doesn’t allow for much attention to detail anyway. 

If you’re an ROR reader, you’re probably among those still inclined to take the details of programming seriously. But here’s the thought process.

The evolution of gold-based formats is always a story in this publication, and this one really is more than a minor wording change. In between the near-extinction of Oldies and resurgence of Classic Hits, there was a decade-long scramble to figure out what the format should be, both musically and in terms of positioning, and a lot of workarounds that didn’t work (e.g., “Fun ’60s and ’70s”).

Tied to the changes in positioning and musical era is always the question of whether to age with the existing audience. While it would seem like this decision has been made for all of radio, there still haven’t been the gains in selling a 45-plus audience that would make gold-based radio stations less self-conscious about their audience. The hangup about “classic” has always been worse for Classic Hits programmers, in part because of Classic Rock’s heavily publicized new, younger fans, but it’s an issue for everybody.

If listeners notice any changes, they might notice this one. It’s hard for me to remember now what friends and family said about the tweaks at WCBS-FM New York in the early ’00s, because all I remember now is the angry reaction at the family barbecue right after Jack-FM replaced it. But I know we talked about CBS-FM every year leading up to it as well. In the past, ratings have shown that when stations make less-dramatic moves to modernize than an outright format change, it typically takes a few ratings books for existing listeners to decide “this is no longer my radio station” in a measurable way. Eventually, Classic Hits listeners did become able to articulate that there was no ’60s music on their favorite station besides “Brown Eyed Girl.”

Q104.3 hasn’t dropped CCR or the Rolling Stones … or Foghat. It hasn’t leaned into the grunge ’90s as aggressively as other Classic Rock outlets. But it is a big, successful radio station that has consistently delivered on a well-defined position for 30 years. There are enough devoted listeners to notice the positioner change. There aren’t currently enough other provocations that they’ll feel unwelcome.

Overall, though, you’re right about positioners. Over the last two decades, we’ve looked to slug lines to carry radio’s various campaigns, from “stations between the stations” to “music discovery” to “radio is free” and now “guaranteed human.” They’re not the wrong messages, but they’re not enough by themselves, and when they’re only on our air, they are not reaching a 28-year-old who might like the music but conceivably think of “Classic Rock” as something for older listeners. As it happens, this point was made in a different article the same week.

Macro is important, micro isn’t wrong. Throughout its history, Ross on Radio has been about music and programming, history and trends, and issues large and small. I’ve always tried to host the same discussions about “how should I program my radio station?” that influenced me as a Radio & Records reader in my early days in the business. There have been plenty of ROR columns that address radio’s existential crises, particularly with music, but this article about a slogan change did resonate with a lot of readers.

I don’t want programmers to give up focusing on the details of their radio stations. The on-air product is something that most can still control, to some degree. To not update the sound of the station is like the Seinfeld joke about middle-aged men dressing like their last good year. It’s not wrong to care about the details — we need to do better radio for the not-insignificant number of people who continue to choose radio — but as with positioners, we need to do more. The mistake is caring only about the details.