• 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

JACK'S OFF IN DALLAS

Re: jockless jack/personalities

> No disagreement here- but that's the way a lot of JACK
> stations are being sold to listeners- "we're like an iPod on
> shuffle". That was the point.

It is sad that radio has come to this.

> >
> > Radio isn't supposed to be an iPOD though. Radio isn't
> > supposed to be a jockless jukebox. Radio just shouldn't be
>
> > that way.
> >
> > > if they really think about the whole concept, JACK
> without
> > > personalities really is like an iPod on shuffle-- WITH a
>
> > > bunch of commercials. So what their point of remaining
> > > jockless long-term would be is a mystery.
> > >
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Dennis</P>
 
Re: jockless jack/personalities

In A much earlier thread, I did say, it's about doing more for less (Cheaper and cheaper and cheaper). Jack was the answer. Throw away the bodies, and leave the computer running with no one in studio.
(I do apologize though, for my extremeness in saying that it's just a computer in a closet now...but it still feels that way to me.)<P ID="signature">______________
"If you never say NO, How much is your YES worth?"
</P>
 
jockless jack/personalities

your cynical, skeptical, jaded, negative view of this is still considered extreme.

Please show us your evidence of any radio group programmers sitting around, concocting "hey, is there a way we can do it cheaper and cheaper? Let's thow away the bodies and leave the computer running with no one in the studio!".

c'mon. If you really in your heart believe this is the state of radio today you
should change your screen name (because you DON'T) and find another hobby.


> In A much earlier thread, I did say, it's about doing more
> for less (Cheaper and cheaper and cheaper). Jack was the
> answer. Throw away the bodies, and leave the computer
> running with no one in studio.
> (I do apologize though, for my extremeness in saying that
> it's just a computer in a closet now...but it still feels
> that way to me.)
>
 
Re: jockless jack/personalities

> your cynical, skeptical, jaded, negative view of this is
> still considered extreme.
>
> Please show us your evidence of any radio group programmers
> sitting around, concocting "hey, is there a way we can do it
> cheaper and cheaper? Let's thow away the bodies and leave
> the computer running with no one in the studio!".
>
> c'mon. If you really in your heart believe this is the
> state of radio today you
> should change your screen name (because you DON'T) and find
> another hobby.
>

I am sure that somewhat to an extent, it is about saving money and having no jocks saves money. But, mostly, it is about ad revenue and target demos. Jack stations will likely get jocks after a few months.

> > In A much earlier thread, I did say, it's about doing more
>
> > for less (Cheaper and cheaper and cheaper). Jack was the
> > answer. Throw away the bodies, and leave the computer
> > running with no one in studio.
> > (I do apologize though, for my extremeness in saying that
> > it's just a computer in a closet now...but it still feels
> > that way to me.)
> >
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Kevin</P>
 
jack personalities

You're right about ad revenue and sales demos.

But the saving money on jocks thing-- if you think about how much they're "saving" right now, please consider:

* many are paying off contracts with jocks from the previous format (in major
markets that can be a big number over a period of months, even years in
a few cases)
* the dollars they're not paying out before they hire personalities is a small
amount when you compare it to the overall operating budget of the station.

So, in the end, the conspiracy theory that JACK is on because of the huge savings with no jocks is a non-starter.


> I am sure that somewhat to an extent, it is about saving
> money and having no jocks saves money. But, mostly, it is
> about ad revenue and target demos. Jack stations will likely
> get jocks after a few months.
 
Re: jack personalities

> You're right about ad revenue and sales demos.
>
> But the saving money on jocks thing-- if you think about how
> much they're "saving" right now, please consider:
>
> * many are paying off contracts with jocks from the previous
> format (in major
> markets that can be a big number over a period of months,
> even years in
> a few cases)
> * the dollars they're not paying out before they hire
> personalities is a small
> amount when you compare it to the overall operating budget
> of the station.
>
> So, in the end, the conspiracy theory that JACK is on
> because of the huge savings with no jocks is a non-starter.

All true and all correct. But, do you think jocks have anything to do with this whole money thing?

> > I am sure that somewhat to an extent, it is about saving
> > money and having no jocks saves money. But, mostly, it is
> > about ad revenue and target demos. Jack stations will
> likely
> > get jocks after a few months.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Dennis</P>
 
jack-personalities

No. Those in our business who hate corporate giants or have been fired by "the suits" love to think it's a money thing- it is not.


> All true and all correct. But, do you think jocks have
> anything to do with this whole money thing?
>
> > > I am sure that somewhat to an extent, it is about saving
> > > money and having no jocks saves money. But, mostly, it
> is about ad revenue and target demos. Jack stations will
> > likely get jocks after a few months.
> >
>
 
Re: jack-personalities

> No. Those in our business who hate corporate giants or have
> been fired by "the suits" love to think it's a money thing-
> it is not.

I am not arguing with you facts, but I was wondering. How do you know jocks and money have nothing to do with this whole thing? Do you work in radio?


> > All true and all correct. But, do you think jocks have
> > anything to do with this whole money thing?
> >
> > > > I am sure that somewhat to an extent, it is about
> saving
> > > > money and having no jocks saves money. But, mostly, it
>
> > is about ad revenue and target demos. Jack stations will
> > > likely get jocks after a few months.
> > >
> >
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Kevin</P>
 
jack-personalities

Yes, I do and, trust me, the biggest "money" aspect to JACK is making higher ad revenue. Most will not remain jockless, thus any temporary "savings" is more likely offset by paying off contracts and deals to jocks from the previous format.


> I am not arguing with you facts, but I was wondering. How do
> you know jocks and money have nothing to do with this whole
> thing? Do you work in radio?

> > > All true and all correct. But, do you think jocks have
> > > anything to do with this whole money thing?
> > >
> > > > > I am sure that somewhat to an extent, it is about
> > saving money and having no jocks saves money. But, mostly,
> it is about ad revenue and target demos. Jack stations will
> > > > likely get jocks after a few months.
 
Re: jockless jack/personalities

I guess that it comes to this. Mom and pop stations from the old days up to the seventies were run by sole proprietors or small partnerships and were willing to go out on a limb. The result could be a flop or a fantastic success. Inovations in radio came from them. A winning idea could bring great riches to the owner.

Now we are in the days of large corporate radio. Companies owned by shareholder/investors who know nothing special about radio and large debts where the interest MUST be paid every period or they will be forced into bankruptcy. The investors want to see a constant earnings per share and the managers of the company and the manager of stations will receive relatively small bonuses if they go out on a limb and win higher ratings, but they will get fired if they experiment and it flops.

The result of all this is the marginalization of radio.

So to boost the bottom line earnings, stations run automated with Jack and save salaries and benefits. The station may even be able to cut back on spot time every hour due to the savings and hopefully have a little higher ratings.

Radio needs to be deregulated and frequencies need to be privatized.


> It is sad that radio has come to this.
> <P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
tough times at JACK? Amazing

Just look at the Dallas ratings 25-54- JACK has a lot more stations BELOW them than ahead of them (and that IS the idea, isn't it?). "...during this trying time at JACK"? What trying time? They're Top 10 in a Top 10 market.

Why do some of you insist JACK is in trouble around the country when they've been on-air less than 6 months in most markets? It has to be the typical sour grapes wishful thinking that permeates our industry and it is indeed sad.


> Still #8 25-54 should keep the lights on during this trying time at JACK.
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom