Rolling Stone Upset About KROQ

[TheBigA]

The folks at Rolling Stone (do people still read them?) are upset about the changes at KROQ, and so they used the opportunity to do a rant about radio.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/radio-coronavirus-crisis-985533/

In a typically mindless way, the writer confuses the demise of KROQ with the other firings due to COVID-19. Anyone in LA knows that KROQ was in trouble a year ago, long before any virus.

The real problem isn't radio. It's the lack of a music community. At one time, everyone hung out at the Roxy or Troubadour or even the Palomino depending on your taste. Now the music is far less organized. The lack of a core community has hurt rock radio.

What the writer misses is that radio has risen to the occasion, and is serving the local community with news and information. Those stations have increased in popularity. Those that play marginal music, like KROQ, are declining.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

The folks at Rolling Stone (do people still read them?) are upset about the changes at KROQ, and so they used the opportunity to do a rant about radio.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/radio-coronavirus-crisis-985533/

In a typically mindless way, the writer confuses the demise of KROQ with the other firings due to COVID-19. Anyone in LA knows that KROQ was in trouble a year ago, long before any virus.

The real problem isn't radio. It's the lack of a music community. At one time, everyone hung out at the Roxy or Troubadour or even the Palomino depending on your taste. Now the music is far less organized. The lack of a core community has hurt rock radio.

What the writer misses is that radio has risen to the occasion, and is serving the local community with news and information. Those stations have increased in popularity. Those that play marginal music, like KROQ, are declining.

KROQ, like most alternative stations, has been playing less than marginal music for the last 20 years. The irony is that Rolling Stone has been writing about it all that time, but never realized how marginal the music really was. But that is to be expected from a magazine that hasn't done any meaningful reporting in just about, well, ever - unless you believe their disgusting glorification of the Boston Bomber (http://archive.boston.com/news/sour...pect_tsarnaev_makes_cover_of_rolling_sto.html) has meaning.

They are the ultimate in poseurs who have never been as cutting edge as they like to think they are. That's right Jann and Ben, looking at you.

 

[TheBigA]

The irony is that Rolling Stone has been writing about it all that time, but never realized how marginal the music really was.

The music is a reflection of the culture, and the culture unfortunately has become more insular and less collaborative. Last year there were a number of great movies about LA, but my favorite was Echoes From The Canyon. When you see this movie, you realize how collaborative the artistic community was then, and how that is no longer true.

https://youtu.be/QRVFBQHBUls

Tom Petty was the last artist of that great era of LA rock. No one has replaced him. His death was really the death of LA rock, culminating in KROQ.

 

[michael hagerty]

The music is a reflection of the culture, and the culture unfortunately has become more insular and less collaborative. Last year there were a number of great movies about LA, but my favorite was Echoes From The Canyon. When you see this movie, you realize how collaborative the artistic community was then, and how that is no longer true.

https://youtu.be/QRVFBQHBUls

Tom Petty was the last artist of that great era of LA rock. No one has replaced him. His death was really the death of LA rock, culminating in KROQ.

And, once more, this site needs a "like" button for comments.

 

[Andy Travis]

Meanwhile, at least something of a community around music in Southern California is forming at 88.5 FM, with very knowledgeable and passionate DJs, and a station that's been supported by the artists themselves. Also, somewhat similar dynamic (but different styles of music) on KCRW.

I enjoyed when KROQ was influential, but Rolling Stone should tune down the dial and they might find a bit of what they're missing.

 

[b-turner]

I think TheBigA said it perfectly: radio responds to trends and doesn't create them.

The opinion of the writer seems to be that radio ownership is killing radio. That is such an absurd thought. If you owned a business would you be striving to destroy it? Especially if you had investors that were backing you? It's insane to think that's the business model for any company, radio station or not.

To put the shoe on the other foot, it would be about like radio blaming Rolling Stone for a decreased subscriber base for the hard copy on the talent of the writers. The reality is Rolling Stone is not the only source of the content of their publication. I can find much online without Rolling Stone. Granted they have exclusive content.

One other point, the writer seems to have no clue how revenue and payroll work. You have to have the revenue to meet payroll and when there's only a certain amount for payroll, you work with what that can get you.

All the 'glory days of radio' examples spoken of are no longer done, not because of a lack of money to do so but because it is not what the audience wants. That also includes the syndicated programs (aka nationalization mentioned in the article). Simply put, if it didn't work, it wouldn't be done. Everybody seems to forget these big public corporations spend a great deal on researching what the listener wants so their properties can excel.

Last, on the numbers game mentioned in the article: Advertising Agencies are the ones playing the numbers game. That forces radio to play because the dollars are controlled by the ad agency in places where the numbers matter. I don't buy the '117 Alt stations and all they want is KROQ that I can't sell them'. Advertisers and agencies buy on numbers, target demographic, reach and results. If KROQ isn't performing as it should, nobody is going to be asking for it, but rather the company is trying to include it in the 177 other Alts just to get something.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

I think TheBigA said it perfectly: radio responds to trends and doesn't create them.

The opinion of the writer seems to be that radio ownership is killing radio. That is such an absurd thought. If you owned a business would you be striving to destroy it? Especially if you had investors that were backing you? It's insane to think that's the business model for any company, radio station or not.

To put the shoe on the other foot, it would be about like radio blaming Rolling Stone for a decreased subscriber base for the hard copy on the talent of the writers. The reality is Rolling Stone is not the only source of the content of their publication. I can find much online without Rolling Stone. Granted they have exclusive content.

One other point, the writer seems to have no clue how revenue and payroll work. You have to have the revenue to meet payroll and when there's only a certain amount for payroll, you work with what that can get you.

All the 'glory days of radio' examples spoken of are no longer done, not because of a lack of money to do so but because it is not what the audience wants. That also includes the syndicated programs (aka nationalization mentioned in the article). Simply put, if it didn't work, it wouldn't be done. Everybody seems to forget these big public corporations spend a great deal on researching what the listener wants so their properties can excel.

Last, on the numbers game mentioned in the article: Advertising Agencies are the ones playing the numbers game. That forces radio to play because the dollars are controlled by the ad agency in places where the numbers matter. I don't buy the '117 Alt stations and all they want is KROQ that I can't sell them'. Advertisers and agencies buy on numbers, target demographic, reach and results. If KROQ isn't performing as it should, nobody is going to be asking for it, but rather the company is trying to include it in the 177 other Alts just to get something.

There is also the irony that Rolling Stone has always looked down on rock radio, and never more so than during the 70s and 80s when AOR was at its peak, and so coincidentally was Rolling Stone, who covered the very same artists the AOR stations were playing. It's not a coincidence that Rolling Stone started its long decline at the same time they became a lot more "selective" in the artists and topics they reported.

Too hip for the room makes you look really cool at the nightclub, but isn't a good mass sales strategy.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Meanwhile, at least something of a community around music in Southern California is forming at 88.5 FM, with very knowledgeable and passionate DJs, and a station that's been supported by the artists themselves. Also, somewhat similar dynamic (but different styles of music) on KCRW.

You should re-write that to change "...around Southern California" to "in some areas of Los Angeles.

The biggest problem of KCSN/KSBR is that they have very limited coverage of just pieces of LA and Orange counties.

And with the recent changes in administration, it looks like changes are "in the wind".

 

[DavidEduardo]

The music is a reflection of the culture, and the culture unfortunately has become more insular and less collaborative. Last year there were a number of great movies about LA, but my favorite was Echoes From The Canyon. When you see this movie, you realize how collaborative the artistic community was then, and how that is no longer true.

https://youtu.be/QRVFBQHBUls

Tom Petty was the last artist of that great era of LA rock. No one has replaced him. His death was really the death of LA rock, culminating in KROQ.

As Michael says, we need a "like" button.

The writer, apparently living in a crystal ball dated sometime in the past, ignores how alternative rock has fragmented into even smaller subgroups. That 5 or 6 share KROQ once had is now a group of maximum-2-share formats, and declining.

The issue is not the radio station. It is the national change in taste.

 

[TheBigA]

The issue is not the radio station. It is the national change in taste.

Exactly and there are radio people who are studying these changes in taste and seeking out potential new radio formats as audiences for new music grow. There are new genres and sub-genres that are gaining attention, and we may be just a few years away from replacement formats for some of the older formats that are aging out.

 

[Radionerd408]

As Michael says, we need a "like" button.

The writer, apparently living in a crystal ball dated sometime in the past, ignores how alternative rock has fragmented into even smaller subgroups. That 5 or 6 share KROQ once had is now a group of maximum-2-share formats, and declining.

The issue is not the radio station. It is the national change in taste.

What is 'Alternative'? Imagine Dragons? Billie Elish? Breaking Benjamen? Ask 5 different people and you'll get a different definition, though likely there will be some sort of loose consensus. Ask 5 different posters from this forum and they will tell you they have the exact definition. As it turns out most consumers (and research companies) have a fairly liberal acceptance of what the definition of Alternative is/isn't. Part of the beauty of the format is it's ability to ebb and flow with differenty music cycles. The format also has a long history of embracing a multitude of sub-genres.

In terms of Broadcast radio, the format has long been characterized by different approaches. For the most part, the current representation of the Alternative format is represnted by:

POP ALTERNATIVE (i.e. WRFF/Philadelphia, KTCL/Denver, KYSR/Los Angeles)
ROCK ALTERNATIVE (i.e. KTBZ/Houston, KPNT/St Louis)
INDIE ALTERNATIVE (i.e. WEQX/Manchester)

Like most formats, the 'Alternative' format has had its ups and downs, and currently riding out a low cycle. What has changed/happened?

• Legacy artists/titles (Nirvana, Pearl Jam, RHCP) have lost a lot of their relevance to today's 18-34 year old, while the 25-54 fans of the format are not as excited about the new stuff.
• Most of the hits from the format over the last year or 2 have been concurrently hits at Top 40, and the way Top 40 rotates records, fans of those songs have not had to seek out Alternative to hear 'High Hopes'.
• The modern crop of Core artists have not been able to follow up with legitimate hits over the last couple of years (Twenty One Pilots, Mumford and Sons)

With that, the format is still much healthier than the "2 share max" that DavidEduardo projected. (I don't have all of the data on demo breakdowns, so will use the published 6+ as general barometer of health)

From March 2020
New York - 2.3 share
Los Angeles - 4.5 share (2 stations; 2.5 & 2 share)
Chicago - 2.4 share
Houston - 4.3 share
Washington - 3.3 share
Philadelphia - 2.5 share
Miami - 2.1 share
Seattle - 4.5 share
Phoenix - 2.9 share
San Diego - 5.0 share (2 stations; each with 2.5 share)
Denver - 3.6 share
Portland - 3.8 share
St. Louis - 5.4 share
Sacramento - 4.2 share
Pittsburgh - 4..6 share
Las Vegas - 2.3 share
Austin - 3.8 share
Milwaukee - 3.8 share

Are these market leading stations? In most cases, they are not. They are however performing at a respectable level and often better options than having an also-ran CHR etc. The 'Alternative' format is alive and well, even while not performing at the level it had been a couple of years back.

 

[CTListener]

What is 'Alternative'? Imagine Dragons? Billie Elish? Breaking Benjamen? Ask 5 different people and you'll get a different definition, though likely there will be some sort of loose consensus. Ask 5 different posters from this forum and they will tell you they have the exact definition. As it turns out most consumers (and research companies) have a fairly liberal acceptance of what the definition of Alternative is/isn't. Part of the beauty of the format is it's ability to ebb and flow with differenty music cycles. The format also has a long history of embracing a multitude of sub-genres.

In terms of Broadcast radio, the format has long been characterized by different approaches. For the most part, the current representation of the Alternative format is represnted by:

POP ALTERNATIVE (i.e. WRFF/Philadelphia, KTCL/Denver, KYSR/Los Angeles)
ROCK ALTERNATIVE (i.e. KTBZ/Houston, KPNT/St Louis)
INDIE ALTERNATIVE (i.e. WEQX/Manchester)

Like most formats, the 'Alternative' format has had its ups and downs, and currently riding out a low cycle. What has changed/happened?

• Legacy artists/titles (Nirvana, Pearl Jam, RHCP) have lost a lot of their relevance to today's 18-34 year old, while the 25-54 fans of the format are not as excited about the new stuff.
• Most of the hits from the format over the last year or 2 have been concurrently hits at Top 40, and the way Top 40 rotates records, fans of those songs have not had to seek out Alternative to hear 'High Hopes'.
• The modern crop of Core artists have not been able to follow up with legitimate hits over the last couple of years (Twenty One Pilots, Mumford and Sons)

With that, the format is still much healthier than the "2 share max" that DavidEduardo projected. (I don't have all of the data on demo breakdowns, so will use the published 6+ as general barometer of health)

From March 2020
New York - 2.3 share
Los Angeles - 4.5 share (2 stations; 2.5 & 2 share)
Chicago - 2.4 share
Houston - 4.3 share
Washington - 3.3 share
Philadelphia - 2.5 share
Miami - 2.1 share
Seattle - 4.5 share
Phoenix - 2.9 share
San Diego - 5.0 share (2 stations; each with 2.5 share)
Denver - 3.6 share
Portland - 3.8 share
St. Louis - 5.4 share
Sacramento - 4.2 share
Pittsburgh - 4..6 share
Las Vegas - 2.3 share
Austin - 3.8 share
Milwaukee - 3.8 share

Are these market leading stations? In most cases, they are not. They are however performing at a respectable level and often better options than having an also-ran CHR etc. The 'Alternative' format is alive and well, even while not performing at the level it had been a couple of years back.

But do they attract the type of listeners advertisers feel are likely to accept and act on advertising campaigns? College students and cynical, too-cool-for-the-room musical hipsters are almost as undesirable a target for advertisers as the dreaded, set-in-their-ways 55+ crowd.

 

[Radionerd408]

But do they attract the type of listeners advertisers feel are likely to accept and act on advertising campaigns? College students and cynical, too-cool-for-the-room musical hipsters are almost as undesirable a target for advertisers as the dreaded, set-in-their-ways 55+ crowd.

Broadcast Alternative formatted station actually attracts a relatively mainstream audience, not 'too-cool-for-the-room hipsters'. Those hipsters are also too cool for the radio.

 

[TheBigA]

Are these market leading stations? In most cases, they are not. They are however performing at a respectable level and often better options than having an also-ran CHR etc. The 'Alternative' format is alive and well, even while not performing at the level it had been a couple of years back.

And I think that's why the format still exists. It's telling that while KROQ is rebuilding, Entercom didn't completely blow it up and change formats completely. There is still an audience, and it's still very sellable. I agree with your definitions, and your explanation for what has happened.

The part of it that bothers me is that the record labels aren't as pro-active with this format as they are with others. There was a time when they were, and it led to a lot of success. I think there's a view at the labels that they can make enough money with streaming, and don't need radio to create careers. I think they're missing an opportunity.

 

[DavidEduardo]

With that, the format is still much healthier than the "2 share max" that DavidEduardo projected. (I don't have all of the data on demo breakdowns, so will use the published 6+ as general barometer of health)

You misinterpreted my position which is that if Alt stations split into the various groups that make up the audience, none will get more than a 2 share.

Today, most Alt stations are combining various subsets of the music. A simplistic analysis is that an individual listener will like one song, accept the next one and dislike the third one. Eventually, those listeners will find a better fit via streams or personal playlists and abandon this format.

I think the Alt format is a time bomb, although it will still last a few more years.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Broadcast Alternative formatted station actually attracts a relatively mainstream audience, not 'too-cool-for-the-room hipsters'. Those hipsters are also too cool for the radio.

It is still an under-performing format in most markets. Just look at Philadelphia... the billing rank is double the depth of the ratings rank.

That is what happened in Atlanta, too... the billing was not as high as the rank and that made the format untenable.

 

[MarkW]

Anyone in LA knows that KROQ was in trouble a year ago, long before any virus.

100% right, BigA.

In fact, more often than not, KROQ has been underachieving for the past several years. I was calling for Kevin Weatherly's ouster a few years ago, when the station first sunk into the low 2's for an extended stretch. As a programmer, he followed the same tired script for far too long.

 

[MarkW]

rom March 2020
New York - 2.3 share
Los Angeles - 4.5 share (2 stations; 2.5 & 2 share)
Chicago - 2.4 share
Houston - 4.3 share
Washington - 3.3 share
Philadelphia - 2.5 share
Miami - 2.1 share
Seattle - 4.5 share
Phoenix - 2.9 share
San Diego - 5.0 share (2 stations; each with 2.5 share)
Denver - 3.6 share
Portland - 3.8 share
St. Louis - 5.4 share
Sacramento - 4.2 share
Pittsburgh - 4..6 share
Las Vegas - 2.3 share
Austin - 3.8 share
Milwaukee - 3.8 share

The St. Louis station skews heavily Active Rock. The Pittburgh station has no in-market active rock competitor and is home to the Pittsburgh Penguins.

Not sure I'd cite stations in the low 2's as examples of success, but nonetheless, I do thank you for compiling for that informative summary!

As a whole, I think the format is much more viable in the west than in most other parts of the country.

 

[michael hagerty]

There is also the irony that Rolling Stone has always looked down on rock radio, and never more so than during the 70s and 80s when AOR was at its peak, and so coincidentally was Rolling Stone, who covered the very same artists the AOR stations were playing. It's not a coincidence that Rolling Stone started its long decline at the same time they became a lot more "selective" in the artists and topics they reported.

Too hip for the room makes you look really cool at the nightclub, but isn't a good mass sales strategy.

Rolling Stone hasn't been happy about radio since Tom Donahue (KMPX, KSAN) died.

45 years ago.

 

[adradio]

Re. KCSN, I've subtly noticed changes in their format. It's starting to evolve into a typical commercial station. The early incarnation was a wide open playlist, mixing old and obscure deep cuts with new, eclectic artists. It was great...radio nirvana.
'Smart Rock', I loved it. Now they've turned to playing a heavy rotation of Top 30 or so current tracks (albeit from new, eclectic artists) and have changed the mix of old stuff to things from the past 20 years and taken out most of the '60s and '70s stuff, or greatly reduced it. I miss Sky Daniels.