A KOOL Change

[DavidEduardo]

You said earlier the range was 35-54. Does that change things materially?

The advertiser target is 25-54. KOOL targets 35-54 within that broader demo.

Those two things are unrelated. Buyers decided that the new foreign brands did have superior build quality (although not at first) and American carmakers tried competing with inferior products. But many foreign brands also bit the dust during this time as well (most British non-luxury brands and virtually all from the Iron Curtain countries). The early Japanese entries weren't all that great here either. A couple of recessions, a "fab" engagement with "fins and things" really soured some American car brands as well as the increasing cost of maintenance, repairs and fuel. "Longer, Lower, Wider" bit the dust when it came to just transportation.

Yes, so brands failed due to long-standing lack of appeal... Nash, Hudson, Austin, Triumph, Morris are a few US and UK brands that just could not continue

All of the brands you mention, except Saturn, failed to compete in their respective price ranges. For instance there was only the price difference that made Mercury 'better' than the equipped Ford. In the old days there was some perceived value in having a car that matched your standing in society. WWII essentially brought that to an end and cars had to compete not only with their formal competition but also with other models in their own companies. Pontiac, for instance, was the hot buy in the sixties but 10 years later, when the youngsters now had families, there was slipping demand for "sports" two door models so they didn't sell well. There were just too many models and the added costs of both manufacturing and buying could not be ignored.

In each case, the brands died due to their failure to remain attractive in image, price and build quality. In the case of KOOL, it had an old image and a build quality issue of sounding too much like the past. It can only be saved by trying to create a fresh image that distances it from the old one.

 

[landtuna]

Most youth rebels against their parent's old tastes. That is why so many stations can't transition to a second generation without a new format or a refresh.

Popular music radio was still fairly new when I was a kid so there was no second generation in my house. Myself and one sister were the only radio people.

Listeners in their 30's and 40's today don't want disk jockeys that "make listening fun". We get our entertainment on social media and online, we get music from radio. Younger demos hate DJs unless they add something exclusive, like talents such as Seacrest, Bones and Charlemagne do.

None of my five kids listen to the radio except perhaps while driving to and from work (under 30 minutes per day total) so I have no idea what they like or don't. Social media is what the landlines were in the old days. I see it as a big contest to see who can become the latest 5 minutes, or less, of fame. It's mostly all crap. Seacrest is everywhere these days but I fail to see the 'talent'. Never heard of the others.

And music goes through trends and cycles, too. That affects radio formats.

Very true. Radio has always been a reflection of what's happening in the real world.

I'm annoyed because some think that anyone over 50 has to love Sinatra. Honestly, I very thoroughly dislike almost all of his songs and don't like being considered a partisan.

I'm with you on Sinatra. Try living in Noo Yawk Sity (or Secaucus) with an opinion like that. Dean Martin had a completely different style and talent.

Actually, most that do that see very positive results. Even things like changing package color or, for example, adding little red grains to a powdered detergent, make people happy with their purchase decision.

Something that has never affected me.

In your opinion. The fact is that Classic Hits (using the industry definition) is moving away from almost all 70's and even thinning the early 70's crowd. Obviously, the people under 50 don't want that music and don't "miss" it.

I have no illusions that eventually that music will fade away. After all we don't hear four string ensembles any long either. That won't change its quality in the eyes of its fans though. We'll all have to die off first.....then, who cares?

Classic Hits is best defined as "the music of the most fun years of your life". It is not about the songs as much as it is about the emotional ties of adults with periods of their youth. I have just given you about $100,000 in perceptual research boiled down into two sentences.

One thing I've discovered is that perceptual research is usually performed by the interested parties who will most benefit from the published results. So as a rule I discount them almost completely. Unless they come out of scientific research they are just publicity.

No, the brand became highly tarnished and was not succeeding with 25-54 demos. The oldies station took their 55 and older listeners, leaving them with no "bulk" and very, very poor under-55 levels. In other markets, the same music blend is good for a top 5 rank in 25-54, but KOOL had an image issue of being an old fashioned station due to an ancient image.

I'm not doubting KOOL was becoming out of date. Only that they think changing their brand name will improve things. After all, they already cheaped out on staffing and on their music offerings. "KOOL-FM" has meaning to Phoenix area residents. "BIG" means absolutely nothing. If you want to improve the brand then improve the product. Don't put some new paint on and old building and proclaim it's "new and improved".

KOOL-FM was at one time my only pre-set. It's been gone now for going on 15 years. Thank goodness we now have several other choices to choose from in the Valley 'cause KOOL is going to be going, going gone in the not too distant future. Just like the once great British car industry. Keep the brand name but let the product go south.

 

[DavidEduardo]

I'm with you on Sinatra. Try living in Noo Yawk Sity (or Secaucus) with an opinion like that. Dean Martin had a completely different style and talent.

Actually, we agree on the bulk of the things you say in this post. We just have different perspectives, perhaps because you are an entertainment user and I am a creator.

One thing I've discovered is that perceptual research is usually performed by the interested parties who will most benefit from the published results. So as a rule I discount them almost completely. Unless they come out of scientific research they are just publicity.

Perceptual research is usually done by independent research companies hired to give a "health report" or future guidance to a company and product.

A research company tries to do a very neutral form of questioning, and they present the data to the client. If the client misinterprets or simply ignores parts of the findings, the project is worthless. I've done (as in managed, analyze, presented and even interviewed) in hundreds of radio projects. Never was anything slanted to make the client happy.

I'm not doubting KOOL was becoming out of date. Only that they think changing their brand name will improve things. After all, they already cheaped out on staffing and on their music offerings.

The music is "right on" based on many other markets. The issue is the presentation and the name and the image they have. Whether they can erased the image is to be seen. But the staff changes fit what 35-54 listeners want today, although they may have a morning show issue.

"KOOL-FM" has meaning to Phoenix area residents.

Those over 60 find it positive. Nobody else seems to feel that way.

"BIG" means absolutely nothing.

Bingo! That is the objective.

If you want to improve the brand then improve the product. Don't put some new paint on and old building and proclaim it's "new and improved".

Based on many comparable markets, the music is pretty much perfect. The issue is whether they can erase the negative images of "KOOL FM".

KOOL-FM was at one time my only pre-set. It's been gone now for going on 15 years. Thank goodness we now have several other choices to choose from in the Valley 'cause KOOL is going to be going, going gone in the not too distant future. Just like the once great British car industry. Keep the brand name but let the product go south.

Yet for at least 13 of those 15 years, KOOL was a top 5 biller and performer in ratings. It just disintegrated recently.

 

[TheBigA]

If you want to improve the brand then improve the product. Don't put some new paint on and old building and proclaim it's "new and improved".

The product isn't the problem. The problem is the image. So that's what this is about. New paint every now and then is a good idea. But so far I haven't seen anyone proclaim this "new & improved."

 

[landtuna]

Yes, so brands failed due to long-standing lack of appeal... Nash, Hudson, Austin, Triumph, Morris are a few US and UK brands that just could not continue.

Austin (two-seaters), Triumph and Morris (very small sedans) either didn't fit the American market or their potential buyers weren't large enough to support their limited size. I have owned three Triumphs which were a ton of fun to drive, easy to work on and very inexpensive to maintain. But the two-seater market is very small and their size, relative to the huge American behemoths sharing the roads in that era made them somewhat intimidating to drive in traffic. In addition they had long standing financial issues arising from the two World Wars the Brits endured the first half of the century which did not allow them to do much R&D.

Nash and Hudson were deeply involved in wartime manufacturing during the 40's and didn't have a reasonable product to sell when the economy improved in the early 50's (even though the Fabulous Hudson Hornet set NASCAR speed records when they still raced on the beaches of South Florida). Their financial straits forced a joining of forces but still could not compete with the Big 3.

My dad's first brand new car was a '56 Nash Rambler station wagon. Not much for looks but it was the first car we ever had with A/C and always ran perfectly. It lost its life after a red light runner t-boned it but it could have still been running today. Unfortunately the buyers of yesteryear bought largely on looks and Nashes looked a bit like something produced in East Germany.

 

[CTListener]

Austin (two-seaters), Triumph and Morris (very small sedans) either didn't fit the American market or their potential buyers weren't large enough to support their limited size. I have owned three Triumphs which were a ton of fun to drive, easy to work on and very inexpensive to maintain. But the two-seater market is very small and their size, relative to the huge American behemoths sharing the roads in that era made them somewhat intimidating to drive in traffic. In addition they had long standing financial issues arising from the two World Wars the Brits endured the first half of the century which did not allow them to do much R&D.

Nash and Hudson were deeply involved in wartime manufacturing during the 40's and didn't have a reasonable product to sell when the economy improved in the early 50's (even though the Fabulous Hudson Hornet set NASCAR speed records when they still raced on the beaches of South Florida). Their financial straits forced a joining of forces but still could not compete with the Big 3.

My dad's first brand new car was a '56 Nash Rambler station wagon. Not much for looks but it was the first car we ever had with A/C and always ran perfectly. It lost its life after a red light runner t-boned it but it could have still been running today. Unfortunately the buyers of yesteryear bought largely on looks and Nashes looked a bit like something produced in East Germany.

My dad's car at the time he married (1953) was a '48 Hudson. I was born in 1955 and the first car I was aware of him having was a '51 Ford. So he was apparently one of many consumers who bailed on the likes of Hudson and Nash as the '50s dawned.

 

[landtuna]

Actually, we agree on the bulk of the things you say in this post. We just have different perspectives, perhaps because you are an entertainment user and I am a creator.

I didn't know you could sing and dance!

Perceptual research is usually done by independent research companies hired to give a "health report" or future guidance to a company and product.

In my corporate experience the product is always conforming somewhat to the intent of said research (whomever paid the bills).

Those over 60 find it positive. Nobody else seems to feel that way.

There are not nearly as many "nobody else's" as their used to be (a reference to the many posts on this site).

Yet for at least 13 of those 15 years, KOOL was a top 5 biller and performer in ratings. It just disintegrated recently.

Or perhaps someone just took notice? I must have been one of the first KOOL people to jump ship.

 

[landtuna]

This has been fun David. Thanks!

 

[michael hagerty]

Not really sure what the point of the rebrand is when they are still playing the same music.

To get people who weren't listening before to listen now.

 

[michael hagerty]

Take yourself out of the "radio people discussing radio" mindset for a moment and put yourself in the shoes of a listener. A person in the target demo...say, a 42 year old woman with a couple teenage kids and a medium size SUV who lives in Gilbert.

What does this new station offer her? Let's say she divides her listening between a few sources. She had a preset for KOOL, one for The Mountain, one for Mix, but more often than not she streams music from Spotify. She doesn't know the first thing about the 6+ numbers or TSL. She just knows what she likes.

Is she going to catch the change at 94.5? Is she going to say "OMG this is what I've been looking for all along!" or say "huh...that's weird" and hit the button for the other stations or go back to streaming? I would argue that if you're launching a brand new station (or an old station with a new brand), you've got to get her to say something closer to "OMG" than "huh..." and you need to do it sooner than later.

Nope. The problem is that 42-year-old woman either doesn't have a preset for KOOL or hasn't been using it. She doesn't have to say "OMG". She just has to listen more---or some.

 

[michael hagerty]

And renaming it "Big" does not solve any of that. It is their parent's or grandparent's station with a new coat of paint.

Brands matter. Best example of that is iHeart. If there'd been a "Clear Channel App" or the "Clear Channel Music Festival", it would have crashed to the ground with a thud. Clear Channel had a reputation, not just among people in the industry, but among listeners and music lovers, and it was a bad one.

I worked for them for eight years---the re-branding happened two years into my time there. When Bob Pittman changed the name and the logo, all of a sudden people acted like it was a new company. It wasn't. Didn't matter. iHeartMedia is a success with audiences, despite endless cycles of layoffs, jocks VTing from other time zones and billions of dollars in debt. We know about that stuff. The audience for the most part doesn't know and doesn't care.

 

[landtuna]

The product isn't the problem. The problem is the image. So that's what this is about. New paint every now and then is a good idea. But so far I haven't seen anyone proclaim this "new & improved."

Some people here have intimated that.

 

[101tm]

A lot of people, myself included, were skeptical that WOGL changing their brand would make any difference, but from what I’ve read it has. Although that was a more drastic change than KOOL-FM, involving major musical and imaging shifts as well, it seems to have resonated with the audience - and their main competitor, who had been leaping past them, has suffered recently. The major change was changing the name of the station. “WOGL” stood for “old gold.”

When did a station last call themselves “Cool” or “Kool”, seriously? That was a brand that I associate with 1950s and 1960s oldies. It seems to still work in Denver (KXKL is an amazing station), but in most cases it’s quite dated. Perhaps it’s a case by case basis.

A lot of classic hits stations have changed names over the years - successful classic hits stations. KJR in Seattle. WRIT in Milwaukee (ironically called 95-7 BIG FM). KLTH in Portland. KOSF in San Francisco has been through several different names. WMXJ in Miami. WOCL in Orlando was “Sunny 105.9” for 2 years and became “105-9 Sunny FM” a couple of years after. WOMC used to be “Oldies 104.3.” WJJK in Indianapolis, arguably one of the most successful classic hits stations in the country, was “Gold 104.5” (although briefly “Jack FM” before going back to classic hits).

I’m sure all of the above stations had reasons for changing their brand name. The name changes for all of the above stations obviously worked, because they’ve sat comfortably or at (or even near!) the top of their markets except for maybe WMXJ. Things change. Sometimes we like it and sometimes we don’t. I personally find KOOL-FM boring, and I did long before the name change. But I’m just an observer and younger than the core demo they’re after, so I reserve my judgement.

 

[TheBigA]

A lot of people, myself included, were skeptical that WOGL changing their brand would make any difference, but from what I’ve read it has. Although that was a more drastic change than KOOL-FM, involving major musical and imaging shifts as well, it seems to have resonated with the audience - and their main competitor, who had been leaping past them, has suffered recently.

The main improvement was in 25-54, where the station moved to Top 5. KOOL would love to duplicate that.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

Which is sometimes all you need to do. The brand changes alienates the old listeners like you who only remember the past. .

Again, I'm not coming at this from the angle of an old listener who is asking "why don't they play Brown Eyed Girl anymore?"

I'm asking "what does this rebrand offer to people who have no use for radio anymore?" You said to landtuna that "The product isn't the problem. The problem is the image."

I disagree, and also disagree with the very respectable Mr. Hagerty that a rebrand will do the trick. It might in the near term, but beyond that?

At the risk of veering off into Marshall McLuhan territory, the medium is the message. Or massage. For some reason I have a scene from a Woody Allen film in my head...anyway...

The last radio programmer I worked with - and whom I disagreed with very strongly on a number of things - about five years ago pointed to the towers on South Mountain and said something like "the time is coming...sooner than later...when those things up there on the mountain will be irrelevant. We need to prepare for that inevitability, or we're dead." He was right. And he was laid off a year later.

I keep coming back to this analogy, and you may disagree...but the truth is that what we're doing here is akin to arguing about the cover, the weight, and the page layout of the phone book and whether it should be dropped off at the door, the corner of the house, or closer to the curb.

 

[michael hagerty]

I disagree, and also disagree with the very respectable Mr. Hagerty that a rebrand will do the trick. It might in the near term, but beyond that?

If it works in the near term, you work hard to deliver on the new audience expectation that when they hit the preset for 94.5, they’ll hear a song they like. You maintain that new audience as best you can.

If, by “beyond that”, you mean the eventual demise of OTA radio—-well, hey, your comment about the last programmer you worked with suggests you know the business—-the job is to make as much money as possible before that happens. If ranking three or four places higher in the demo gets you on more agency buys and VTing a couple of dayparts cuts costs, then whatever gets you there is a win.

Terribly unromantic for those of us who remember when you won audiences with the best, most exciting radio possible, aiming to outright own the market…but those days have been over for decades.

 

[michael hagerty]

I keep coming back to this analogy, and you may disagree...but the truth is that what we're doing here is akin to arguing about the cover, the weight, and the page layout of the phone book and whether it should be dropped off at the door, the corner of the house, or closer to the curb.

Here’s the difference: No one wants or needs what’s in the phone book. Whatever you do to it won’t matter.

With KOOL (and having been gone from Phoenix for nine years, this is based on what I can see online), you have a radio station that plays music which tests well with the key sales demo. The music isn’t what’s being rejected.

And yet it underperforms. Audacy has other stations in other cities that play this music and they do well. This is not an issue of regional tastes In music. The difference is the packaging. So that’s what they change.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

If, by “beyond that”, you mean the eventual demise of OTA radio—-well, hey, your comment about the last programmer you worked with suggests you know the business—-the job is to make as much money as possible before that happens.

I understand the desire to make as much money as possible before the inevitable happens. People need to protect their jobs after all. Yet - if I may wax philosophical for a moment - the problem for the OTA radio business is that they collectively said "how can we squeeze the last bits of revenue out of this before it dies?" instead of "how can we make this relevant for a new generation?"

 

[michael hagerty]

I understand the desire to make as much money as possible before the inevitable happens. People need to protect their jobs after all. Yet - if I may wax philosophical for a moment - the problem for the OTA radio business is that they collectively said "how can we squeeze the last bits of revenue out of this before it dies?" instead of "how can we make this relevant for a new generation?"

True. In fact, that became the motivation while radio was still arguably healthy and hastened the decline.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm asking "what does this rebrand offer to people who have no use for radio anymore?"

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. There's nothing ANY radio station can do to get people to throw away their phones and computers. Radio companies know they lost the device war 20 years ago. That's why they're investing in other platforms. But that's a different conversation. Millions of people still use something you consider to be irrelevant. They may not be attached to radio the way they once were, or listen to it for as long as they once did. But they still listen in the Nielsen definition of listening. Radio stations don't aim for 100% of the audience. It just takes 7% of PUR to win in Phoenix. Right now, about a half million people a week listen to KOOL. That's not bad for something you consider irrelevant. Are you going to tell them that they don't matter?