Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

Ratings
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=156&t=89489		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  notbob [ Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Ratings
From Chicagoland Radio and Media;


* * A bit more regarding the newly released September radio ratings... In the ratings contest between Chicago's three sports talk stations, both WMVP-AM/ESPN Chicago and WSCR-AM/670 The Score can claim victories, while WGWG-LP/The Game 87.7 can hardly justify its own existence, broadcasting to extremely few listeners and ratings at or just above 0.00 during much of the day. Despite there being three sports stations in town for most of this year, it is just a two-way race. In the all ages numbers, WSCR-AM wins with a 2.2 share over WMVP-AM's 1.3 share. WSCR-AM's cume is 601,800, while WMVP-AM's cume is 476,200. In the station's target demographic of Men 25-54, WSCR-AM narrowly wins overall, ranked at #12, over WMVP-AM, ranked at #14. For weekday mornings in that demographic, WSCR-AM's Mully & Hanley show is #4 with a 4.4 share, reclaiming the lead over WMVP-AM's Mike & Mike show which is #7 with a 4.2 share. WMVP-AM begins to take the lead in the Men 25-54 ratings in the later mornings and hold on to them through the midday. WMVP-AM's Colin Cowherd show in the 9:00am hour is #8 with a 3.7 share, while WSCR-AM's show with Matt Spiegel (and mostly a rotating collection of co-hosts during Dan McNeil's absence) was 12th with a 3.2 share. WMVP-AM's midday show with Carmen & Jurko were #7, while Spiegel and his fill-in co-hosts fell to #15. Even with decreased ratings, thanks mainly to fan disinterest in Chicago White Sox baseball broadcasts (which hurt the station even more in evenings with a heavy load of night games), WSCR-AM's Boers & Bernstein afternoon show once again takes the lead, coming in at #3 with a 4.3 share, just above WMVP-AM's Waddle & Silvy show which was #6 with a 3.9 share. As a side note, both afternoon shows for WMVP-AM and WSCR-AM individually beat every other talk station in Chicago's Adults 25-54 and Men 25-54 ratings. Traditionally, summertime ratings for sports talk radio stations are the lowest of the year, as it has been a very long time since any Chicago baseball team has given listeners a reason to talk sports and no other major sports are taking place. Both WMVP-AM and WSCR-AM are expecting much higher numbers in the coming weeks and months. WGWG-LP remains hopeful to somehow find any ratings number higher than that achieved by a weak-signal suburban college station.
Author:  Peoria Matt [ Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ratings
Are there any streaming ratings? Or has that not been developed yet.
Author:  Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ratings
So I guess Frank will have to change his sig. Likely to get worse for W&S too now that Speigel has a permanent partner, there's no more White Sox and Bears season is in full swing.
Author:  bigfan [ Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ratings
0.00

Image
Author:  Scorehead [ Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ratings
Meatpants is the only WSCR host to lose to WMVP...and he lost to Cowherd. :lol:
Author:  bigfan [ Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ratings
Scorehead wrote:
Meatpants is the only WSCR host to lose to WMVP...and he lost to Cowherd. :lol:

Yeah, thats bad. That's like a 1 hr show? 2 hours?

More Host picking games, O/U's, etc......that will fix it...I like hearing Mannely break down a Bears game, it is like having a player tell you what they do, but after that, it's a guest host who won a silent auction.
Author:  Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ratings
Scorehead wrote:
Meatpants is the only WSCR host to lose to WMVP...and he lost to Cowherd. :lol:

He'll be fine now that things have settled.
Beside - Aren't you the guy (apparently the only one too) that claims to regularly listen to The Game?
Author:  bigfan [ Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ratings
I tried to GAME it, they have some work to make it a better station and not just the Scores distant cousin.
Author:  Beardown [ Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ratings
15th for Spieges and Mannelly in September?

Well, I warned Mitch well before hand as soon as I heard the Mannelly rumors. But these PDs and GMs love their bad white Bears. Rozner was the only correct choice.

And it's only gonna get worse. Cuz this was 4 Bears games of sports talk. If he's 15th for that, then it can never get better.
Author:  bigfan [ Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ratings
I do hope someone at CBS calls Zimmerman and asks why the ratings drop? So he can explain his big savings move.
Author:  good dolphin [ Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ratings
Do people really accept that being preempted once every two weeks actually damages B and B ratings. I know that is the popular explanation
Author:  Zizou [ Wed Oct 01, 2014 9:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ratings
good dolphin wrote:
Do people really accept that being preempted once every two weeks actually damages B and B ratings. I know that is the popular explanation


I never bought that line of reasoning. It's spurious and a convenient excuse. If the team was playing well and ratings spiked, the station wouldn't discount the high ratings because of White Sox success.
Author:  billypootons [ Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ratings
so the game couldnt even get a bump from haugh and kaplan being on TV every day? they've been running ads on local tv too... how long do they get before wgn cuts ties with this money pit?
Author:  bigfan [ Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ratings
good dolphin wrote:
Do people really accept that being preempted once every two weeks actually damages B and B ratings. I know that is the popular explanation


that explanation sure gets used often enough
Author:  Hank Scorpio [ Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ratings
B&B back on top, quite naturally.

love lift us up where we belong...
Author:  Curious Hair [ Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ratings
How does WFMT keep bouncing from 0.9 to n/a? Do they just not pay for ratings some months? Is the PPM sample size so small that they can bounce between a niche audience and no audience? Weird.
Author:  denisdman [ Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ratings
Hank Scorpio wrote:
B&B back on top, quite naturally.

love lift us up where we belong...



Tallest midget, all 5 '8.5" of him.
Author:  RFDC [ Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ratings
Hank Scorpio wrote:
B&B back on top, quite naturally.

love lift us up where we belong...

:D
Author:  Seacrest [ Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ratings
good dolphin wrote:
Do people really accept that being preempted once every two weeks actually damages B and B ratings. I know that is the popular explanation


It is only accepted by the show that lost in the latest ratings book.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/