-
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
NYC Metro Radio Ratings - January 2023
- Thread starter pjc1961
- Start date
Indeed. In 12+ Sid is #1 with a 7.6, 2.1 ahead of the #2 station which was WHTZ. However, it is nearly all 55 and over, with just a 0.8 in AMD in that demo, "good" for 23rd in the market. It goes up to 13th in 35-64, so most of the listening is 65 and over.
In 65+, the morning show has a 19.2 share. Next closest, WINS AM and FM have a mid-7's. 55% of the audience is over 65 and 75% is over 55. Less than 10% is under 50.
That's amazing, to be honest.
I'm sure Cats is totally fine with that, though. That's who he's targeting, right?
Who under 50 is ever going to listen to AM radio any more, anyway? AM stations that are still tying to do that are failing. So this guy is serving the only viable demo left for AM radio and he's actually crushing it with almost one out of every five listeners 65+ tuning into his station's morning show. That's incredible, but he still gets a scornful, "However they're all over 55" remark. Even though you are in that age category yourself, do you know how discriminatory that sounds?
I'm nowhere close to being over 65 but I do know that audience deserves to be served as much as anyone else. I'm sure Cats isn't getting the agency business that Big Radio proponents on this forum seem to care about exclusively, but he has created a station that's proving to be popular with an otherwise neglected demo, with a business model that works without those agency buys. Isn't that all that matters?
I agree with that, and I often say that radio would be a lot different if it didn't depend on advertising for its revenue. It's great when those who can afford to own radio choose to do it. We need more people like that. Perhaps if more were so inclined, we'd see fewer frequencies sold to religious broadcasters.
I used to work with a guy who had Rush Limbaugh on his little radio throughout the mid morning. He was 60 at the time and was just working to pass time. He would buy whatever Rush advertised, he would travel wherever Rush suggested, in other words he wasnt in want of money.
I think 60+ is a very lucrative market albeit restricted by a time horizon.
If a 60 yr lives another 20 yrs and listens to and patronizes radio for 10, that's a whole of business right there.
Under 40s are all podcast buffs, I dont think radio has any chance of getting in on that action anymore.
What we see is that about half of the people under 40 listen to podcasts at least once a month. So it's very possible to subscribe and listen to podcasts and also listen to the radio at other times. In other words, it's not at all-or-nothing thing.
The other thing to know is that most podcasts are primarily spoken word. That is because music royalties for podcasts are high.
Lastly, we can see that a lot of 18-34 year olds listen to traditional radio. Although they don't use it for spoken word. According to the OP, the #1 station for 18-34 is LaMega. #2 is WLTW, and #3 is Z100.
Channel Q is mostly a California thing, at least it was when it was live. It's a national network. It's flagship in Los Angeles only has 14,000 in cume. 2,600 in Chicago (iHeart's variation, on WKSC HD2 occasionally gets enough for a 0.1 share) In Seattle, they have a translator for it and it only gets a cume of 600. It's mostly a listen in app type thing. The extremely low bitrate HD3s are unlistenable for music. It was barely listenable for talk.
And as for Alt on WINS HD2, they can't expect people to listen to it on that trainwreck app and HD2 and be successful. That audience has gone to Spotify or music services, maybe Youtube
All HD channels are on a single digital "signal" and each operator can divide 1, 2 and 3 however they want. If I'm not mistaken, you could conceivably make the HD-1 use less of the bandwidth than HD-3. While I have never set up HD bandwidth allocations on a station myself, perhaps one of the engineers who read this can further detail how HD channels can be assigned individual bandwidth.
WAXQ is tied for 12th in 25-54. It has been between 10th and 12th for the last 12 books. In the sales demos, it is quite consistent, but certainly not a "record" in any way.
All of it's January bounce has been in 55-64 and 55+, neither of which are enviable sales demos.
Xperi provides an explanation and a handy chart of the possible bitrate combinations. It does not show a recommendation to run HD1 at a lower bitrate than any subchannel.
Correct. But you could do that. My point is that HD-3 is not by nature any different than 1 or 2 as it all depends on how each station assigns bitrate combinations.
When does 94.7 does flip, which station will be the next one everyone will try to kill off?
You can. EMF does this in Chicago. They have HD1 HD2 HD3 and HD4. HD3 and HD4 sound a tad better than HD2 for example. They can set the bandwidth on a computer for each channel. Good engineers can make a lower bitrate HD3 sound really good if they know what they're doing.
I'm curious about this, as stations like WWRL in NYC (Cume 24,000) or WDAS-AM in Philly (Cume 7,900) had people listening, but didn't get the courtesy 0.1?
That would be quite unwise for obvious reasons.
You can, but it's written in the FCC rules that the HD1 has to provide audio quality "equal to or better than analog FM", or something to that effect.
And I'm surprised WINS is broadcasting both their analog FM and HD1 signals in stereo, including a stereo reverb effect (!), rather than switching them to mono.
Yes, but you could have a lower quality talk format on HD-2 and give better quality to 1 and 3. My point was that HD-3 does not have to be poorer quality.
That is surprising. I would favor full monaural on all channels.
It would improve the robustness of the FM signal. And yes, the HD1 would have to be encoded the same way to avoid any jarring transitions between stereo and mono when traveling around the fringes of the HD coverage area, where the receiver is flipping between analog and HD reception.
- Status