Pursuant to the discussion in this thread, my point was posted with regard to imaging, not playlists. Mr. Berger would likely have encountered a considerable challenge in denying a CHR flip while airing jingles such as "WPLJ Hit Radio 95."
-
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
101 CBS FM
- Thread starter 1069_KIFR
- Start date
Pursuant to the discussion in this thread, my point was posted with regard to imaging, not playlists. Mr. Berger would likely have encountered a considerable challenge in denying a CHR flip while airing jingles such as "WPLJ Hit Radio 95."
I think I'm missing something here, maybe some posts were deleted? Why would anyone suggest that cbs fm change anything that they are doing? I admit, a few of the 90s they play are weak and they would be better off playing better 80s songs instead but I get that they are constantly moving forward as a classic hits station must do. They should probably be playing more of the New York 80s hits, like Dazz Band let it whip, You dropped a bomb on me etc. Small tweaks make sense, there is a great deal of gray area on music flow and rotations but to say that they should drop their heritage brand is just crazy.
Keep in mind, it doesn’t matter what was popular “then,” it matters what the audience wants to hear from “then” now.
Which is the music and not the dopey "CBS-FM" imaging.
Please, don't make some of us laugh.
And that was what it was in reply to--which songs are/aren't being played. But it does extend to imaging--just because YOU find the imaging somehow incongruous doesn't mean the audience as a collective entity does. Nothing they do will appease everyone; it does appear what they're doing works quite well at this point in time.
CBS-FM imaging has not changed much over the years is a standing joke to most people outside of the station fan boys and has been for years. People do not listen to a station because of the imaging but it can drive people away.
The best example of that was the obnoxiously snarky JACK-FM period. The music is similar to what it is now but the imaging was so damn offensive it drove people away. If they had just simply altered the playlist, kept the friendly DJ personalities they probably would have done just fine. They blew it up and offended people in the process, big mistake.
Just saying a minor tweak for 2017 would be not having ID's that sound like they are being read by someone who is mentally challenged would be an improvement as well as improving the audio.
I have never heard what is generally a Top 3 music station being made fun of or dismissed as bad radio. The station performs well when compared to its peers in other markets.
Jack actually outperformed the former CBS-FM oldies format in 24-54 prior to the second flip; the change to Classic Hits came as CBS discovered the power of the format in the early Philly PPM tests.
You are basing your criticisms on false facts and premises.
The only thing changing at WCBS-FM and KRTH-FM are management changes for the Entercom classic hits stations and changes to the playlist such as how much 90's songs should be added to the playlist.
I am going to take a guess here that you are a hard core fan or connected with the station, since I never said it was bad radio nor that it was not doing well. That is oddly the second time I had to say that in this thread. The JACK fiasco was also widely discussed and not new news I am pulling out of thin air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCBS-FM
btw - despite what I have said in this thread, I personally like the playlist in both then and now.
W
WorldFamous
Guest
Wikipedia? Really?
I personally contributed a Wikipedia history for a radio station I worked for during most of the 1980s. I deliberately included one very inaccurate bit of information. An error so obvious that even the least knowledgeable reader would know is wrong. Eight years later and the error has never been corrected.
Quote Wikipedia and you lose the argument.
I personally contributed a Wikipedia history for a radio station I worked for during most of the 1980s. I deliberately included one very inaccurate bit of information. An error so obvious that even the least knowledgeable reader would know is wrong. Eight years later and the error has never been corrected.
Quote Wikipedia and you lose the argument.
So now we have Wikipedia bashing to defend CBS-FM, as if JACK experiment was a success. There are countless articles in the news media about CBS-FM Jack period that back this up.
Example.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/nyregion/07radio.html
I am, actually, a competitor going back more than 20 years. I have nothing to do with CBS-FM or its owners past and present. And I'm not a listener or fanboy. I'm more of a Luis Fonsi and Daddy Yankee partisan than a follower of old Journey and Meat Loaf cuts.
What I am stating is fact-based history. CBS-FM dropped oldies and went with Jack.
Jack was not a fiasco. It got, within the first year, better 25-54 numbers than the oldies format had exited with. It also looked a lot better in 25-44 than the oldies format did.
However, in 2006, about a year into Jack in NYC, CBS started looking at the PPM data that had been coming out of Philadelphia. There, sister station WOGL had been tweaking its oldies format towards Classic Hits since the PPM test began, and they had managed to establish solid PPM numbers while maintaining the diary-based positions they still needed to sell. Among those of us who got the initial Philadelphia PPM data, we could see how WOGL was developing as a PPM contender; as more stations encoded and the data became richer, it was obvious that WOGL had found a powerful blend for the future 2008 launch of the PPM in New York City.
So, despite the success in core sales demos of Jack, CBS decided that they had to prevent another operator from taking the classic hits position as, of the two formats, it appeared that the techniques discovered in Philadelphia constituted the better choice.
We understand you don't like the imaging. But with a cume rating of over 20, that means that one out of every five people 12+ in NYC listens each week. Even in the narrower 25-54, they have around a 21 cume rating. Whatever they are doing, however they are doing it, it's working nicely. And it is Entercom's best performing FM at the moment.
The Times article you link to is quite inaccurate, but not atypical of newspaper reporting of all things radio.
First, the Times says that CBS-FM "returned to the oldies format". No, they didn't. They adapted what they were learning from Philadelphia about the PPM, and introduced a classic hits format, centered on a significantly different set of core years.
Then the article describes Jack as a different variation on the oldies format, which it was and is not. Jack is significantly based on imaging and its lack of traditional DJs and a playlist a mile wide but an inch deep.
From there on the Times goes on to consider the protests (yeah, right) about the flip to Jack as if they had any bearing on the matter... a generally inaccurate piece based on a misunderstanding or total lack of understanding of what was coming soon to NY from our friends at Arbitron.
I saw those inaccuracies to but I specifically quoted this, "It lost more than half its audience share, and its ranking fell as low as 22, according to Arbitron. Recently its ratings have improved slightly, but have remained far behind its pre-Jack level."
They were not the only publication to report the ratings problem. I am assuming that was overall rating 12+, and the numbers you you are quoting were 25-54 just before the change? Regardless they had a PR problem considering how the media reported it and it was not only NYT obviously.
It was higher in 25-54, exceeding the final books as oldies. Agencies don't look at newspaper reports before making a buy, and they don't look at 12+ either.
W
WorldFamous
Guest
So sorry to read that you're unable to comprehend the difference between what you call "Wikipedia bashing" and what you perceive as defending CBS-FM. We get it. You don't like their imaging. But digging in your heels does you no good.
I can go and change a wikipedia page to claim that Clint Howard had a secret love child with girl who played Mindy on the Facts of Life. Not the most credible source to backup an argument...
- Status