From you, that statement is my highest recommendation and compliment.
-
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
Classic Hits 80s
- Thread starter AM/FMRAINMAN
- Start date
From you, that statement is my highest recommendation and compliment.
I think that people who listen view those old AT 40's much as they think about visiting a museum. Some things at a museum are still relevant today, some were passing fancies and others were just bad ideas. The fun is in looking back at the good, the bad and the ugly
I do not denigrate your personal taste. I question your belief that radio stations should take your preferences into account when they do not reflect the wants and needs of the majority of listeners to the formats we are discussing.
I've made the same comments to quite a few people who think playlists should be longer and who don't understand that what may have been a hit 30 years ago may not be playable today.
I refer to the listeners who would "populate" a 60's based oldies station as geezers, as such stations would find most of their listening to be coming from people in their 60's and above.
Why would I? Based on your criticisms of successful classic hits station, I know that such knowledge would not be helpful to me in any way.
You appear to be in a small market...where stations can't afford $40,000 music tests. So the chances of being recruited for any music testing for an OTA station are nil.
KM has been on this board for about twice as long as you have; he was one of the original moderators when Dough, Lance and Sam ran the board.
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
It's okay, David. He probably sees my low post total and thinks I'm a "newbie".
For the record: My old account here, as "KMRichards" (no periods or space) got hosed in the database during one of the many migrations of the old Radio-Info over the years, and those posts of mine that remain available -- by no means all of them -- are labeled as "Guest" with no total. If you were able to go back to 2003-ish, when I originally joined Radio-Info's predecessor, my posts would probably total somewhere in the neighborhood of 8,000 to 10,000. There was also a significant multi-year gap during which time I read but didn't post, predominantly the years during which Diana Fleming specifically invited the former moderators not to participate. (It was her board then, so I accepted her invitation and stayed quiet.)
Now that I've settled that matter ...
It occurs to me that firepoint, and probably others, don't have a working knowledge of how music test participants are chosen. Usually, that process is carried out by a market research firm, so if you're one of those people who politely decline when someone calls you and wants you to "take a survey" ... bzzzzzzzzt, you're never going to be in the running.
The market researchers will use what is called a "screener" on the willing telephone participants, asking questions about how much you listen to the radio per day and/or week, your musical preferences both in radio listening and personal music libraries, and your age (to see if you're in the target demo); they'll also ask you who your favorite on-air personality is (from which we can deduce which station is your P1), and they'll ask you the call letters or slogans of stations you also listen to (from which we can figure out your P2s) and sometimes they will run down a list of call letters -- including not only the station they are recruiting for but the stations that are the direct competitors, stations with formats known to appeal to the same listeners as their client, and a few that are "wild" additions, just to keep the candidate from figuring out which station is recruiting.
From the data collected, a list of possible music panelists is generated, and are ranked in order of "best fit" in terms of being a "typical" listener to the station. Then it's a matter of calling them back, inviting them to the panel and asking if they can come to the location where the test session will be held at the specific date and time. Every time they get a "no" they'll have to go deeper into the list. Once enough people have said "yes", plus a cushion to cover for those who do say "yes" but for whatever reason don't attend, that's your panel.
Based on the statements you have made here and the way the screener questions are typically worded, firepoint, I have to agree with David that you -- and the rest of the people here who keep saying music testing is flawed because they have never been invited -- would fail the screener.
KM,
Sorry to hear your about your old account. I think I remember reading some of those posts when I joined RI in December 2003. You and DE are extremely knowledgeable and I've learned from you guys. Keep it up!
R
Sorry to hear your about your old account. I think I remember reading some of those posts when I joined RI in December 2003. You and DE are extremely knowledgeable and I've learned from you guys. Keep it up!
R
A
Avid Listener
Guest
And that is the sort of personal rebuttal that would get anyone other than you admonished by the moderator.
But the truth is simple. You insist that the radio ratings system is accurate, with no other proof than "the people who use it believe it to be accurate". Well, Duh! Of course the people who use it believe it is accurate. That's why they use it. They don't question it. They just treat it the way tribal chieftains believed the shamans when they read the entrails of chickens.
Then, you make claims that will not stand up the the simple scrutiny of common sense, or things any sentient being can easily see with their own eyes or hear with their own ears, and cite the mystical, magickal ratings as your proof. Or, you'll fall back on the tired old argument, "I've been making the same mistakes successfully for decades, so I must be right".
Maybe you need to read this:
Last edited:
I don't believe that to be the case. You posted "much of what you post is unbelievable" which is a thinly veiled way of saying that I lie and do not tell the truth. I simply replied that such comments from one given to that sort of invective actually validated my points.
I believe the systems, diary and PPM, to be accurate within the possibilities of technology and the amount of money radio can spend on ratings. But mine is an individual opinion. I defer to the MRC, which came out of the congressional hearings in the 60's and which is an independent board intended to audit and analyze electronic media ratings and only certify them if they are reliable and trustworthy. The people on the MRC are among the most skilled statisticians and analysts in the country.
Sure, every once in a while an irregularity happens. And generally they get fixed. I have spent 40-some years trekking to Beltsville, Laurel and Columbia reviewing diaries and looking for errors as well as an understanding of "my" stations' listeners. On occasion, I have found big errors, and have gotten a number of books reissued. So I know that there can be errors, and I know that there is generally a remedy for them.
That's not at all true. Radio pays for ratings, but the main use is by ad agencies, who essentially get the data for free. And the agencies and their clients are the ones who back the MRC and its constant auditing of ratings companies and their procedures. They pay lots of money to have confidence in the ratings.
If pretty much everyone who matters in the advertising and radio industries believe in ratings, perhaps it is you who are wrong. That may be due to either just being obstinate, or to a fundamental understanding of the process and use of ratings... but you are alone in your view if only people who actually are involved in the process are consulted.
As a contrast, I'd remind you that radio without ratings is pure disaster. I was returned to a Top 15 market after an absence to find that for two years there had been no radio ratings at all. In that period, market revenues had declined by 50% or a bit more. Agencies simply said, "I'll give you $20 a spot. Take it or leave it. You have no proof anyone is listening". While the major stations had 30" rates of over $50 previously, they were selling for $15 to $20, and the lesser stations were selling for less.
I don't recall saying that, so don't put things in quotes that are not quotes.
That quote does not apply here. All any kind of polling does is take a small sample of a large group and project the results to the size of the group. Typically, presidential polls have an error of a couple of percentage points, up or down. While that error factor is critical when there is only one possible winner, it does not apply to radio ratings where ad buying is constant and ratings are now issued every month because there is no single winner. Stations with higher ratings charge a bit more, and those with lower ratings charge less but nobody is "out of the money" as in a political race. Yet when we look at political polls, they are, time after time, amazingly close to the results with incredibly small sample.
Last edited:
Hmm, so you've noticed that, too. These corporate guys hijack literally every thread on this board, and then call US names when we try to take it back from them. One of these corporate "cheerleaders" (who has not been on this thread so far, as far as I know) called me a "troll" and all we heard from the moderators was silence.
Apparently, David, KM, and a few others sit on the board of directors here, and they are evidently allowed to criticize anyone they want with complete immunity. Mods, we ARE watching who you criticize, and who you don't.
AH-HA!! So the truth comes out! You've got to be a mod in order NOT to be admonished. Got to drink that corporate Kool-Aid or you views don't matter.
Please be civil to each other and stay on-subject.
No, you just denigrate all of us as a group. Whenever any of us find a station that we like, you (and other corporate water-carriers) come on with your usual tired arguments of "well, it's number 30 in the ratings," or "it doesn't cover the downtown business district well enough," or some other similar such b.s. It is obvious that all you corporate types formulate all of your arguments on this board for each other, because you introduce topics that none of us who care for QUALITY music give a damn about. Because I am really NOT impressed with a corporate station's signal strength, or its position in the ratings, or anything else that you harp about. Personally, I don't even WANT corporate guys running stations in the formats that I listen to, because they are only chasing the almighty dollar, and will flip to sports talk in a New York minute if they think it will make them an extra dime per year. They will play their slender playlists, then call the station a "failure," then flip it to sports talk. It's called a "self-fulfilling prophecy." They play MY generation's music, and aim it at a generation young enough to be my kids. That would be akin to asking me to program a station with music of the '30s, '40s, or early '50s. I might have an appreciation for the music, but definitely not an understanding of it. For one simple reason: because I did not LIVE it.
Leave our generation's music to the guys who are COMMITTED to sticking to it. We don't want our music played by the guys who are just passing through our music on the way to an eventual sports talk format.
You don't listen to our music, Dave; therefore, you do not have an appreciation of it. You would suddenly start liking "Accentuate the Positive" or "How Much is that Doggie in the Window" if those songs suddenly started "testing" well. And you would criticize US for pointing it out.
It is obvious that you corporate guys don't actually LISTEN to the radio. Otherwise, you would understand our frustrations. Even if I hear a certain song now, and don't hear it again until next week, I am still left wondering why you didn't play their OTHER hit.
Last edited:
See what I mean, guys?
Please follow my advice and stay on-subject.
Actually from my non-corporate chair here, it's the people whining for deep playlists who typically hijack threads.
R
R
Fair enough. "Classic hits '80s." If classic hits stations would play as deep of an '80s playlist as Tom Kent plays on Friday nights, I would be very happy. He plays '80s tunes that have not been heard on radio in YEARS! And he sticks to the "hits," no deep album tracks or anything like that.
The people never forgot these tunes. Only RADIO "forgot" them!
Thank you ... and FYI, I also enjoy hearing some of the oldies which are seldom played on most Oldies stations.
Frank, I aim to please. I played "Achy Breaky Heart" and "Friends in Low Places" over country stations for several years, even though I hated the first, and got tired of the second. Those were probably the most-requested songs of my years in country radio. And "Achy Breaky" crossed over into pop, so when they introduce '90s to classic hits radio, hopefully AFTER I am 55, they will be faced with adding that one to their playlist. Possibly!
As a former president said, "there you go again". You are exhibiting classic outlier behaviour when you define as synonymous the music you like and "quality music".
"Quality" is an intangible, and it is a subjective intangible to boot. Your quality may be another person's trash.
The hard, cold fact is that those deep playlist oldies or classic hits stations exist in smaller markets where, despite a lack of audience research, more limited competition allows them to survive (or, in some cases, on marginal suburban signals or AM stations ward off the grim reaper). Those stations survive due to circumstances, not good programming.
Ratings are a measurement of the appeal of a station. They are also an indicator of the ability of a station to deliver for customers. It's necessary for a station to have audience and to get results for it to succeed in the long run. So coverage and rank are important.
You should consider all these things as important. If a station does not make money it can not continue to operate and will change format or be sold.
No different than your local supermarket which kicks any product off the shelves that does not generate as much sales as a different product might.
You seem to be aiming this diatribe at one station... 97.1... and the botched effort at doing classic hits. Blame the management of that station, please, not the industry.
Commitments to a format are only as long-lasting as that format's performance. No different than models of automobiles...
You don't have any idea of what I listen to.
I would not personally like or dislike a song based on a test. In fact, I had my fill of "The Wayward Wind" and "Too Pooped To Pop" as I was growing up and don't want to hear those songs again, even as a novelty. My choice; but my choice does not have anything to do in following listener guidance in programming.
Most listeners don't intellectualize the mechanics of radio that way.
Last edited:
A few hours of a specialty show can't compare with regular weekday programming. A specialty show is supposed to be, well, special. That means doing things you don't do the rest of the time. They are mostly placed in off hours where radio tune-in is really low. They are intended to bring a few new listeners to the station without seriously breaking format.
So I would expect such a show to be more a museum than the kind of programming that is successful the rest of the time.
- Status