That's the $20 billion question. We all know what doesn't work. So the question is what will? That's what Metheny and Bloomquist are trying to figure out.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Kevin Metheny Hired as OM for KGO/KSFO
- Thread starter pjc1961
- Start date
That's the $20 billion question. We all know what doesn't work. So the question is what will? That's what Metheny and Bloomquist are trying to figure out.
It's been a while since I read the book, 15 years or so, but wasn't the movie version a composite character of Kevin and someone else?
Suppósedly it was Kevin and his previous PD from WWDC-FM in Washington.
The real issue here is why did they hire this old man to program a station desperate for younger demos? Especially that hack. Radio programming is top heavy with old farts. Bring youth into programming and stations like KGO and KSFO might have a chance.
When you bring in younger programmers, everyone assumes you're trying to do radio on the cheap. And that you're rejecting knowledge and experience because you're trying to save money. This presents the opposite image. The fact is that this is going to be a tough job regardless of the characteristics of the person doing it.
You are missing the point that major stations in major markets don't hire people with limited or no experience. They hire people with experience and track records.
"...experience and track records." Funny, given the parties involved. Thanks for the first chuckle of the day, David. Are there no other experienced, in-demo, professionals, male or female, with the aptitude and knowledge to turn around a moribund news-talk AM.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
What's really funny, is how all these people with "experience and track records" have such terrible track records and yet keep getting hired - or even become consultants - after a string of failed stations behind them. I mean look at the sorry state of WJR, the station Pig Virus is leaving.
As was stated in an extract of a blog article about Metheny I posted a few days ago, this is a person you call to handle disasters. WGN and WJR both qualified: their billings are off perhaps 40% from the 2004-2005 period, and they have long been down around 20th in 25-54 due to aging of their traditional talk formats.
WGN and WJR are not any better than when Metheny arrived at each, but on the other hand, they are no worse... which is probably perceived to be a success.
Nobody you would like.
It's not lack of experience, just the recycling of the same people over and over. There isn't anything special about Kevin Metheney besides his own PR. I find it hard to believe there isn't a thirtysomething person out there with a track record that might create success.
I don't understand why age is an issue. No one said they're aiming for 30-something listeners. Just that they're not aiming for over-70. That leave a big area in the middle.
As I said, this guy is OM for two stations. At some point he'll bring in someone to oversee each of the stations, and those will be the younger people you're talking about.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
He will always be Pig Virus. If he had any sense of shame or decency, he would have changed his name, left the country and gone into some completely unrelated line of work suited for an arrogant, control freak.
Baba Booey.
Meanwhile, Howard still rules. Fartman rules. Pig Virus eat your heart out.
Last edited:
Why would he do that? He's still getting management jobs 30 years later. If anything, the "Pig Virus" stuff helped his brand.
Yes it is. The realization of the limitations of this ratings system is also part of understanding why radio occupies the small role that it does in the plans of advertisers.
It comes as a surprise David, given your background, your posts here and your expertise in research and statistical information, that you would use the words "fair assumption." Is it a fact or is it not?
Are engineers, doctors, lawyers, financiers and tech-heads resistant to being attached to a PPM? Seems this would eliminate a substantial number of potential candidates for PPM panels. If ratings from DC and SF are any indication, it may be that engineers, doctors, lawyers, financiers and tech-heads are just as prone to wear/carry a PPM as the average office worker.
I referenced (in my earlier post) San Francisco and DC having a high number of residents with advanced degrees only to point out that KGO might have a difficult time attracting listeners who want more than the typical fare that's been offered by commercial news-talk stations over the last 20 years.
Survey sez, "Unlikely."
It's an educated guess because we do not have any data proving or disproving this. Just common sense and a bit of experience in human behaviour.
The major incentive to having all the members of a household carrying a meter at least 8 hours a day is the money. A family can get enough "points" for carrying the meters to get sufficient funds to pay, let's say, the grocery bill or to at least pay the utilities. To a professional in the six-figure income range, this is not going to be "worth the trouble" while for the rest of the world, it will be a nice incentive.
And those college-educated folks who might listen to an NPR station often fall into that "rest of the world" category.
There are quite a lot of markets where the NPR or similar station gets good ratings. Usually, it is where they have a decent signal, good programming for the local originations and a great fund raising effort. Where the market is heavily diverse ethnically, such stations do not do as well for language, ethnic and cultural reasons.
It's unlikely that two many of those highly educated high earners filled out diaries because Arbitron sent them $5 a pop for the effort. Again, we can't prove it because those people will not respond to a survey asking why they don't respond to surveys, either.
Let me throw this in...I found that when a person sends a check to a radio station, he is more likely to want to listen to it. He is invested in that radio station in the most literal way. And while we know that only a fraction of the listeners of a non-commercial station will be motivated to send in money, those who do are extremely loyal in ways that ad-supported stations can never understand. When we talk about relating to an audience and engaging them, the fund raising process is a part of that. I believe one of the key things Metheny and Bloomquist have to do with these stations if they have any hope of reviving them is to identify an audience they can reach, and engage them in ways that the other stations have overlooked. I don't know what that means. NPR does their little wine & cheese nights. Something like that, although on a larger scale, might be the way to build a new audience.
This a salient observation. Listeners as shareholders. Commercial talk radio doesn't endear listeners to become shareholders. Rush, Beck, Savage and Hannity have cultivated "loyalists," but as time goes on, are these aging loyalists of value or relevant to the needs of talk radio's survival which depends on attracting younger listeners. They aging "loyalists" may be as toxic as they are beneficial. And by "young," I don't mean 12-24. How about 42? This would be approximately 15 to 20 years younger than the present commercial talk radio listener.
To use a medical analogy, a prescription is usually beneficial to relieving pain or improving health, but it may come with side effects which may be worse than the actual malady.
We may look back at these years of talk radio, when Rush and conservative talkers dominated by way of political talk, in the same light that we look back at the early days of Top 40 AM radio, when jocks selected their own music, jabbered away and made a name for themselves. It was a time when competition was sparse, save for the 'other' Top 40 AM station down the dial. It might have been free-wheeling and entertaining, but it also was undisciplined and lacking focus. When the competition increased, whether it was Bill Drake playing more music and 20/20 news or FM playing album cuts not heard on AM, things changed. Stations focused on target demographics: teens, 18-34 Men, 25-49 Women, etc. Talk radio can't survive on Men 55+ because of attrition. And, aside from sports talk, what's relevant to Men 55+ Men isn't likely to be of interest to Men 35-49.
In order for talk radio to survive, it has to focus on listener needs and interests which change daily and are affected by the tides and currents of the real world on Main Street America rather than political agendas of talk radio hosts. It's not politics. It's not "democrats are bad, republicans are good" or vice-versa. It's also not "d*cks and t*ts" talk. Listen to what Tom Ashbrook does with On Point. Listen to what John and Ken do with KFI. Give listeners something of substance, packaged and presented in a contemporary mode. Listeners will find it and bond with it.
Solely spewing politics on talk radio is akin to AM Top 40 in 1960. Unfortunately for the operators of AM talk stations (especially the small market AM), focusing and serving an audience will require the effort of smart people: producers, researchers and content creators working along with the talent, the man or woman who speaks on the radio. And plenty of time to do the job. Not surprisingly this is why and where NPR shines in the talk radio/high information realm. It seeks to know who the consumer is and delivers a product that the NPR consumer values and is willing to support with a check.
I remember the egos and the yakking, but Top 40 played roughly 40 songs and nobody could change that.
- Status