The sharp increase in audience year on year is an inconvenient truth for those who don't like the new Smooth, and probably a lot of other new things as well.
Translates to...."well it was always going to work, because of the changes we made with Gold!"
You keep singing off the company hymn sheet, but you don't fool anyone on here!>:(
Translates to...."well it was always going to work, because of the changes we made with Gold!"
You keep singing off the company hymn sheet, but you don't fool anyone on here!>:(
Are you suggesting that Smooth's increased reach is purely as a result of the station being broadcast on most of Gold's former AM frequencies? Or do you mean that the programming changes made to Gold have meant that former Gold listeners have switched to Smooth?
Why would they want to emphasis the AM licences when they can point to all the FM stations seeing a growth?
Good point just why when the majority listen on Fm and it's also available on DAB are they even bothering simulcasting on am anyway ??
Are there any parts of the country it can only be received on AM ??
To me now we are in the digital age it's akin to the Beeb reopening the old long since closed down VHF 405 line black and white tv services
A TOTALLY POINTLESS EXERCISE
they should either
Hand back the licences so the radio authority can readvertise and award to a different company
OR
reinstate Gold either automated or with presenters
OR
Switch the transmitters off .
OR FINALLY
a totally new service maybe filling the present fifty to seventy year old age group gap who aren't smooth or radio two listeners
Any ideas or thoughts on this ???
Translates to...."well it was always going to work, because of the changes we made with Gold!"
You keep singing off the company hymn sheet, but you don't fool anyone on here!>:(
Why are you angry about this? There's no company hymn sheet for me, if Bauer or UTV or Celador did what Global have with such a moribund brand I'd be praising them.
Are you suggesting that Smooth's increased reach is purely as a result of the station being broadcast on most of Gold's former AM frequencies? Or do you mean that the programming changes made to Gold have meant that former Gold listeners have switched to Smooth?
Please translate!
I'm answering for myself not the other poster on this
It's obvious that at least SOME of the increase must have come from The station being and let's be honest about it DUMPED on Golds listeners whether they liked it or not
As an aside from what I've read they didn't like it and as I'm in Manchester could still listen on Am if I didn't have my internet radio or iPhone so that's not my particular axe to grind
I'm still rather bemused as to why the usually cost conscious Global Radio Group are frittering away cash on a service which if they replaced it with another station and the new advertising revenue that would come with it COULD make them EVEN MORE MONEY
Unless of course if they surrender licence or close down the transmitters they would have to pay compensation cash to the radio authority and owners of the transmitter network ???
And as I understand they have /had an interesting in the network that could be a tad embarrassing ???
Or even God forbid an admission of failure
It's obvious that at least SOME of the increase must have come from The station being and let's be honest about it DUMPED on Golds listeners whether they liked it or not
Nope. Although a few of the AM frequencies slightly increased in reach the majority are down indicating former Gold listeners have tuned elsewhere. Nobody will tolerate a station they don't like being "DUMPED" on them, they'll just find a station they do like. Except Amara obviously.
Most of the gains are from increased listening to Smooth's FM frequencies.
I'm still rather bemused as to why the usually cost conscious Global Radio Group are frittering away cash on a service which if they replaced it with another station and the new advertising revenue that would come with it COULD make them EVEN MORE MONEY
My understanding is that Gold was losing a significant amount of money. Smooth as a brand attracts a more affluent and marketable audience than Gold and I would guess that Global will keep Smooth on the old Gold frequencies until they've migrated to digital in significant numbers or AM transmission becomes economically unviable.
Can you suggest an AM only format that would make "EVEN MORE MONEY"? I can't think of one.
Unless of course if they surrender licence or close down the transmitters they would have to pay compensation cash to the radio authority and owners of the transmitter network ???
And as I understand they have /had an interesting in the network that could be a tad embarrassing ???
There's no financial penalty for handing back a licence. The Radio Authority ceased to exist a long time ago (Ofcom regulate broadcasting now) so they certainly wouldn't be getting anything!
Nope. Although a few of the AM frequencies slightly increased in reach the majority are down indicating former Gold listeners have tuned elsewhere. Nobody will tolerate a station they don't like being "DUMPED" on them, they'll just find a station they do like. Except Amara obviously.
Nope. Although a few of the AM frequencies slightly increased in reach the majority are down indicating former Gold listeners have tuned elsewhere. Nobody will tolerate a station they don't like being "DUMPED" on them, they'll just find a station they do like. Except Amara obviously.
Most of the gains are from increased listening to Smooth's FM frequencies.
MY REPLY
I did actually say SOME not all
Obviously to credit the increase just to Gold going would be stupid
Where did you read this? Can you provide a link?
MY REPLY
Other than on here many on Facebook radio today and several rather vocal listeners in the local press
My understanding is that Gold was losing a significant amount of money. Smooth as a brand attracts a more affluent and marketable audience than Gold and I would guess that Global will keep Smooth on the old Gold frequencies until they've migrated to digital in significant numbers or AM transmission becomes economically unviable.
Can you suggest an AM only format that would make "EVEN MORE MONEY"? I can't think of one.
MY REPLY
I would say there is a market for something that would appeal to people upto the age of 60
Gold played a good selection of 60s and 70s though it was too regimented
Perhaps something on the lines of solid gold gem with a good variety of stuff from the late 40s to the 1980s
There's no financial penalty for handing back a licence. The Radio Authority ceased to exist a long time ago (Ofcom regulate broadcasting now) so they certainly wouldn't be getting anything!
I did of course mean Ofcom who to be honest are a fairly toothless animal anyway
But as Global did have a stake in the transmission network rather than lose face or give the frequency to others I believe they would transmit nothing but tone all day other than a few minutes of news to stop anyone else utilising them
Why are you angry about this? There's no company hymn sheet for me, if Bauer or UTV or Celador did what Global have with such a moribund brand I'd be praising them.
Perhaps they don't want to? Perhaps they want to run their stations differently to Global? Maybe they think listeners have a brain span slighly longer than a goldfish does?
Global isn't perfect... they make mistakes. (Heart Midlands with the yellow card, perhaps?).
It's like men and women, they will always be different. One radio group doing something and doesn't mean every other one needs to follow suit. That's like McDonalds having one menu and Burger King totally ripping it off (which they don't do).
Global will always have the most listeners... Why? They have larger budgets than Celador and Bauer which they can spend money on - such as some presenters, TV marketing campaigns etc. They also have Capital and Heart in virtually every orifiss of England.
Something money can't buy though is long term listenership. Trends change, listenerships change (as the last 10 years show) and more importantly technology changes.
The future of UK radio lies with internet broadcasting, as 4G rolls out further and more and more people absorb the media in different ways - Global and others will have to adapt, a stiff and stilted playlist of 700 songs won't be around forever.
I have nothing against Global BTW. They do very well and certainly pump out popular stations. What I don't particularly like is people who seem to think their way of doing radio is right - and everyone else must be wrong.
The old Smooth had an enormous playlist and was a ratings dog - with the exception of the North West. And yet with it's stiff and stilted 700 songs the new Smooth has comfortably beaten the old numbers in this holy land of good ol' variety.
What makes you think internet listeners will behave differently than FM listeners? I predict unfamiliar songs and general zaniness (great mate) will be even less popular on the net.
The old Smooth had an enormous playlist and was a ratings dog - with the exception of the North West. And yet with it's stiff and stilted 700 songs the new Smooth has comfortably beaten the old numbers in this holy land of good ol' variety.
What makes you think internet listeners will behave differently than FM listeners? I predict unfamiliar songs and general zaniness (great mate) will be even less popular on the net.
What makes you think that internet listeners behave the same as FM listeners? Do you have any data that suggests this?
Suggesting that all internet radio stations operate a 'great mate' and unfamiliar song strategy is very wide of the mark... have you listened to any internet stations?
Don't take this post the wrong way, i'm not being horrible - just debating a difference of opinion.
What makes you think that internet listeners behave the same as FM listeners? Do you have any data that suggests this?
Suggesting that all internet radio stations operate a 'great mate' and unfamiliar song strategy is very wide of the mark... have you listened to any internet stations?
Don't take this post the wrong way, i'm not being horrible - just debating a difference of opinion.[/
The vast bulk of radio listening is not online- if we ever get to the stage where most people do listen online they'll probably behave as they do now.
And don't forget if there's money to be made on that platform, the big boys and girls will pile in as they do now
I have an FM/DAB/INTERNET radio so I listen from time to time. Generally speaking I find internet pop radio poorly presented (where there are presenters) and a bit bizarre musically ...usually doing a hybrid playlist of established mainstream services. It's been a while since I subjected myself to it though, so feel free to suggest a station of two to enlighten me.
What makes you think that internet listeners behave the same as FM listeners? Do you have any data that suggests this?
Suggesting that all internet radio stations operate a 'great mate' and unfamiliar song strategy is very wide of the mark... have you listened to any internet stations?
Don't take this post the wrong way, i'm not being horrible - just debating a difference of opinion.
It is fair to say that online listening is growing however it doesn't mean that people are listening to internet stations more ( although that will gradually happen).
The existing fm stations are also online and whats happening is listeners are behaving the same and listening to the stations they know. They are just doing it online instead of on fm because it's better for them.
Don't confuse a growth i online listening with a growth in online stations.
Global will always have the most listeners... Why? They have larger budgets than Celador and Bauer which they can spend money on - such as some presenters, TV marketing campaigns etc. They also have Capital and Heart in virtually every orifiss of England.
The only reason they have larger budgets is by stripping out unnecessary (in business terms) cost and providing (in business terms) a product more people like.
Full marks to Celador and UKRD and UTV and the rest for trying something different.. but it's their choice.
does the hierarchy of Smooth/Global read what we write and comment about?
Do you think they laugh or take anything seriously. I don't know how many contribute to this on going thread but its probably a tiny fraction of their listeners, even though we all add our thoughts and opinions do they take notice. In fact they are very lucky to have us because any business needs critics both good and bad but do they really care?
does the hierarchy of Smooth/Global read what we write and comment about?
Do you think they laugh or take anything seriously. I don't know how many contribute to this on going thread but its probably a tiny fraction of their listeners, even though we all add our thoughts and opinions do they take notice. In fact they are very lucky to have us because any business needs critics both good and bad but do they really care?
Most radio groups have highly sophisticated ways of measuring their listeners likes/dislikes as well as their listening and spending habits. They're conducted in a scientific manner using cross-sections of the listening population and demographic profiles.
They have no interest whatsoever in the opinions of a few anoraks on a radio forum whether they agree with the views of the company or not (in much the same way as a railway company would not seek the views of a few trainspotters).
As a general rule, if the majority of anoraks hate it the normal listeners will probably love it as the recent changes to Smooth and the reactions on this forum have proven.
Perhaps one should be set up by members on here then?
That completely removes half of the point of a focus group though. These are random people who have signed up to do surveys or have been approached to do some for money. They won't be told the Station just a generic name like "A easy listening radio station"
Comments
Translates to...."well it was always going to work, because of the changes we made with Gold!"
You keep singing off the company hymn sheet, but you don't fool anyone on here!>:(
How do you explain the audience figures in London and the North West.?
Why would they want to emphasis the AM licences when they can point to all the FM stations seeing a growth?
Are you suggesting that Smooth's increased reach is purely as a result of the station being broadcast on most of Gold's former AM frequencies? Or do you mean that the programming changes made to Gold have meant that former Gold listeners have switched to Smooth?
Please translate!
Good point just why when the majority listen on Fm and it's also available on DAB are they even bothering simulcasting on am anyway ??
Are there any parts of the country it can only be received on AM ??
To me now we are in the digital age it's akin to the Beeb reopening the old long since closed down VHF 405 line black and white tv services
A TOTALLY POINTLESS EXERCISE
they should either
Hand back the licences so the radio authority can readvertise and award to a different company
OR
reinstate Gold either automated or with presenters
OR
Switch the transmitters off .
OR FINALLY
a totally new service maybe filling the present fifty to seventy year old age group gap who aren't smooth or radio two listeners
Any ideas or thoughts on this ???
Why are you angry about this? There's no company hymn sheet for me, if Bauer or UTV or Celador did what Global have with such a moribund brand I'd be praising them.
I'm answering for myself not the other poster on this
It's obvious that at least SOME of the increase must have come from The station being and let's be honest about it DUMPED on Golds listeners whether they liked it or not
As an aside from what I've read they didn't like it and as I'm in Manchester could still listen on Am if I didn't have my internet radio or iPhone so that's not my particular axe to grind
I'm still rather bemused as to why the usually cost conscious Global Radio Group are frittering away cash on a service which if they replaced it with another station and the new advertising revenue that would come with it COULD make them EVEN MORE MONEY
Unless of course if they surrender licence or close down the transmitters they would have to pay compensation cash to the radio authority and owners of the transmitter network ???
And as I understand they have /had an interesting in the network that could be a tad embarrassing ???
Or even God forbid an admission of failure
Nope. Although a few of the AM frequencies slightly increased in reach the majority are down indicating former Gold listeners have tuned elsewhere. Nobody will tolerate a station they don't like being "DUMPED" on them, they'll just find a station they do like. Except Amara obviously.
Most of the gains are from increased listening to Smooth's FM frequencies.
Where did you read this? Can you provide a link?
My understanding is that Gold was losing a significant amount of money. Smooth as a brand attracts a more affluent and marketable audience than Gold and I would guess that Global will keep Smooth on the old Gold frequencies until they've migrated to digital in significant numbers or AM transmission becomes economically unviable.
Can you suggest an AM only format that would make "EVEN MORE MONEY"? I can't think of one.
There's no financial penalty for handing back a licence. The Radio Authority ceased to exist a long time ago (Ofcom regulate broadcasting now) so they certainly wouldn't be getting anything!
Recognition at last!!!! I'll soon be famous
Get famous enough and you too could become one of Smooths 'so called presenters' lol
I did of course mean Ofcom who to be honest are a fairly toothless animal anyway
But as Global did have a stake in the transmission network rather than lose face or give the frequency to others I believe they would transmit nothing but tone all day other than a few minutes of news to stop anyone else utilising them
Perhaps they don't want to? Perhaps they want to run their stations differently to Global? Maybe they think listeners have a brain span slighly longer than a goldfish does?
Global isn't perfect... they make mistakes. (Heart Midlands with the yellow card, perhaps?).
It's like men and women, they will always be different. One radio group doing something and doesn't mean every other one needs to follow suit. That's like McDonalds having one menu and Burger King totally ripping it off (which they don't do).
Global will always have the most listeners... Why? They have larger budgets than Celador and Bauer which they can spend money on - such as some presenters, TV marketing campaigns etc. They also have Capital and Heart in virtually every orifiss of England.
Something money can't buy though is long term listenership. Trends change, listenerships change (as the last 10 years show) and more importantly technology changes.
The future of UK radio lies with internet broadcasting, as 4G rolls out further and more and more people absorb the media in different ways - Global and others will have to adapt, a stiff and stilted playlist of 700 songs won't be around forever.
I have nothing against Global BTW. They do very well and certainly pump out popular stations. What I don't particularly like is people who seem to think their way of doing radio is right - and everyone else must be wrong.
What makes you think internet listeners will behave differently than FM listeners? I predict unfamiliar songs and general zaniness (great mate) will be even less popular on the net.
What makes you think that internet listeners behave the same as FM listeners? Do you have any data that suggests this?
Suggesting that all internet radio stations operate a 'great mate' and unfamiliar song strategy is very wide of the mark... have you listened to any internet stations?
Don't take this post the wrong way, i'm not being horrible - just debating a difference of opinion.
Off course Global isn't perfect, but what they've done with LBC and Smooth is actually remarkable however counter intuitive it seems for some.
It is fair to say that online listening is growing however it doesn't mean that people are listening to internet stations more ( although that will gradually happen).
The existing fm stations are also online and whats happening is listeners are behaving the same and listening to the stations they know. They are just doing it online instead of on fm because it's better for them.
Don't confuse a growth i online listening with a growth in online stations.
The only reason they have larger budgets is by stripping out unnecessary (in business terms) cost and providing (in business terms) a product more people like.
Full marks to Celador and UKRD and UTV and the rest for trying something different.. but it's their choice.
Do you think they laugh or take anything seriously. I don't know how many contribute to this on going thread but its probably a tiny fraction of their listeners, even though we all add our thoughts and opinions do they take notice. In fact they are very lucky to have us because any business needs critics both good and bad but do they really care?
However a focus group would most likely get their attention.
I know for a fact (friend used to work in it) their audience or insight team as they call them are very good at their job.
Perhaps one should be set up by members on here then?
Most radio groups have highly sophisticated ways of measuring their listeners likes/dislikes as well as their listening and spending habits. They're conducted in a scientific manner using cross-sections of the listening population and demographic profiles.
They have no interest whatsoever in the opinions of a few anoraks on a radio forum whether they agree with the views of the company or not (in much the same way as a railway company would not seek the views of a few trainspotters).
As a general rule, if the majority of anoraks hate it the normal listeners will probably love it as the recent changes to Smooth and the reactions on this forum have proven.
That completely removes half of the point of a focus group though. These are random people who have signed up to do surveys or have been approached to do some for money. They won't be told the Station just a generic name like "A easy listening radio station"