It's 2015! Time to get rid of the '70s.

[Avid Listener]

We also can simply play them on the radio and watch as listeners tune out. I've seen that happen. I've also been to concerts where artists try to work in unfamiliar stuff, and watched as people left the room. The goal in radio programming is to keep people in the room, not give them a reason to leave. If listeners are interested in hearing album cuts, we encourage them to buy the album, and listen on their own personal music device. As I said yesterday, we're not a replacement for personal music devices.

I've been to concerts, and have found that it's not so much the "unfamiliar" stuff that turns off the audience, it's the second rate stuff. Since you're not a musician, you probably won't understand this. When a band records an entire album, some of the songs will be really, really good and others won't be. When the band goes on tour, they'll play only the good ones from past albums, but they'll play all the songs from their new album. That's how they "test" all the songs on the album. The new songs that work, that the audience likes, remain on the set list for future concerts. The other songs are put away and dropped from the tour setlist.

But it's not that ridiculous idea of "familiar vs. unfamiliar". That's hogwash invented by suits who don't know anything about music, except as an abstract product. To audiences, it's "good sounding vs not-good sounding". The only aspect of "familiarity" might be the result of a certain similarity in overall sound because the artists have some sort of a signature sound. Most music fans can recognize what band or solo artist is performing a song they've never heard before if it has the artists' signature sound. When I heard Bruce Springsteen's "The Promised Land" from Darkness on the Edge of Town, I immediately recognized it as being a Springsteen song. It was "familiar" in that respect. At the same time, it was a totally new song I had never heard before. But people who have tin ears won't understand that.

 

[TheBigA]

But people who have tin ears won't understand that.

Radio programmers have to program music for everyone, regardless of their taste in music. Stations don't get extra credit for reaching people who know music. People are all the same in the radio world. A body counts for one, regardless of that body's experience or knowledge. So if programming to tin ears works, then so be it. When you get a job programming radio stations, you can put your salary on the line, and we'll see what you do.

 

[oldies76]

We also can simply play them on the radio and watch as listeners tune out. I've seen that happen. I've also been to concerts where artists try to work in unfamiliar stuff, and watched as people left the room.

And those "fans" that left the room are not true fans of that artist in concert. True fans, considering the $$ they spent to get the tickets, will enjoy the whole show and stay the duration. Just like Dodger "fans" leaving in the 7th inning to beat traffic, yet the game is tied 4-4 with the bases loaded. I'll never forget those red brake lights in the lots after Gibson's swing.

And you're making it sound like all listeners will tune out precisely when "Magic" by Olivia Newton-John comes on. It does not work that way. Almost sounds robotic. Heck, listeners will tune out when "Brown Eyed Girl" comes on.

 

[oldies76]

But they didn't fail because of the product they put on the air. They failed because no one who would have liked them knew they were there to listen to.

I agree on this one. Listeners enjoy the classics, but how can they enjoy them if they are broadcasting "mute"? Kind of reminds me of some local stations that never advertised and are no longer around, much to the dismay of their limited listeners.

 

[oldies76]

So if programming to tin ears works, then so be it. When you get a job programming radio stations, you can put your salary on the line, and we'll see what you do.

He can properly program any smaller town station, you know, the ones that have lasted for years with larger playlists and he'll be fine and dandy, raking in the dough. And these stations don't do expensive, repetitive and predictable music tests, so they can afford to pay their PD's the big bucks.

 

[davideduardo]

He can properly program any smaller town station, you know, the ones that have lasted for years with larger playlists and he'll be fine and dandy, raking in the dough. And these stations don't do expensive, repetitive and predictable music tests, so they can afford to pay their PD's the big bucks.

Huh? Small town radio (no matter what your definition of that is) pays... and always has paid... quite miserably.

A smaller town PD is generally the operations manager, the morning or PM drive person, music director, copy writer and does production, remotes, lots of paperwork among many other things.

 

[davideduardo]

The problem with soft AC, is just that, most songs are soft and sleepy. They have to be mixed with more lively currents and classics. To be just soft and easy, is like the 70's versions of "Music of your life" stations or standards. They have not lasted too well over the years.

WDUV is the "poster child" of soft AC in the US. It is #1 in its market, and has been for going on two decades. It has 12+ shares that are generally almost double that of the #2 station.

In the past, it was not even in the top 10 in 25-54, but in the last two years it has removed a lot of the very old music (60's and 70's... Fleetwoods and Carpenters), significantly reduced the playlist size, and is now #1 in 25-54 as well.

The WDUV formula is the model being used for newer Soft AC / Traditional AC stations such as those in Miami and San Diego.

 

[TheBigA]

And those "fans" that left the room are not true fans of that artist in concert. True fans, considering the $$ they spent to get the tickets, will enjoy the whole show and stay the duration.

Radio doesn't program to "true fans of an artist." They program to just plain folks. Folks who may not care about Van Morrison, but happen to like Brown Eyed Girl, just because maybe they like the "la dee da" line. That's why, as I've continued to say, radio stations do what works. We know what we're doing. It's working for us. You are among the small minority who wants us to program to you personally, and we can't do that.

 

[Music Lover]

Same thing happens on CH's. Some play their core songs up to 5 times a day, everyday. The problem with soft AC, is just that, most songs are soft and sleepy. They have to be mixed with more lively currents and classics. To be just soft and easy, is like the 70's versions of "Music of your life" stations or standards. They have not lasted too well over the years.

This is WDUV's (one of the few soft AC's still on FM) hour by hour playlist: http://www.wduv.com/lsp/

This is a non-FM soft AC playlist: http://www.softneasy.com/

Both stations are soft and easy in sound, nothing very lively, yet the non-FM soft AC is more up-to-date with playing soft currents from the charts than the FM soft AC is.

This is another FM soft AC station: http://www.easy973.com/
Playlist: http://quuit.com/Quu/playlist/361

Just like WDUV and the non-FM soft AC, it's also soft and easy in sound.

Just like with WDUV, Easy 97.3 acts as if there is nothing soft since 1999. Norah Jones, Adele, Josh Groban, Michael Buble would all fit their format perfectly.

WDUV has removed the easy listening artists from their playlist (Neil Diamond, Barbra Streisand, Barry Manilow, et al) while preserving the rest of the format. Easy 97.3 offers all of those easy listening artists yet omits many other musically-similar material, such as music by Anne Murray and John Denver. And even more perplexing is the fact that there are also a large number of soft adult contemporary artists mysteriously missing from their playlist. The station has no music by Mariah Carey in their playlist and only one track by Celine Dion is in rotation.

While these FM soft AC's are similarly-formatted, I don't like how they pick and choose which artists should be added and which ones shouldn't. If it's going to be a traditional-based soft AC, the format should be offered in its entirety. I would recommend KAJR 95.9 The Oasis and iHeart Sunny for better programmed soft AC stations.

 

[davideduardo]

But it's not that ridiculous idea of "familiar vs. unfamiliar". That's hogwash invented by suits who don't know anything about music, except as an abstract product. To audiences, it's "good sounding vs not-good sounding". The only aspect of "familiarity" might be the result of a certain similarity in overall sound because the artists have some sort of a signature sound. Most music fans can recognize what band or solo artist is performing a song they've never heard before if it has the artists' signature sound. When I heard Bruce Springsteen's "The Promised Land" from Darkness on the Edge of Town, I immediately recognized it as being a Springsteen song. It was "familiar" in that respect. At the same time, it was a totally new song I had never heard before. But people who have tin ears won't understand that.

There have been many studies done, mostly outside of radio, about how people react to previously unfamiliar music.

All conclude that there is a multi-step process that starts with analytical curiosity/confusion about a new song and ends with emotional attachment or rejection of the song.

Since music appeal is very emotional, and the first few "hearings" of a new song are evaluated analytically, "unfamiliarity" is a key element in understanding the appeal power of a song. Until a person has heard a song a number of times, and "decided" if they like it or not, there is no emotional attachment to the song.

Obviously, there are caveats such as already liking the singer or the band, etc. But all unknown songs start with an evaluation by the listener prior to them becoming either favorites or disliked.

Many years ago, Guy Zapoleon studied the academic research on music acquisition and did his own translation into what it meant for radio. His conclusions have become the base for evaluating the performance of new music on the radio... things like "a song's playability can't be evaluated until the average listener has heard it around 5 to 6 times" and "a station has to have played a song 100-125 times before it can be researched".

In any event, what we see in music tests where "familiarity" is not asked is that new songs that could not have been heard by the participants score, always, well below neutral. In fact, we occasionally toss such songs into a test to aid in the elimination of participants who don't belong in the group and should not be counted.

 

[oldies76]

I don't like how they pick and choose which artists should be added and which ones shouldn't. If it's going to be a traditional-based soft AC, the format should be offered in its entirety.

I'll check those AC stations after work. I've said the same for the classic hits format too. It's a no go in the cities.

 

[joebtsflk1]

OK, here's a B.S. observation gleaned over the years. Softer music generally does not hold up well over time. It does well as currents and maybe recurrents, but give a softer ballad five years or so and it's slowly going to disappear. Top40s will drop these songs first, then the hot ACs with the traditional AC - "Lite" formats holding on to slower songs longer.

Curated music sources that follow a programmer's gut instead of research are probably going to be found online...the one on my tagline is a good example. As much as I dislike tight playlists personally, the pragmatic business side of me would probably choose that option.

 

[davideduardo]

I know more than a few musicians who play many live gigs. They all say that the sequence in which songs are played have a huge impact on how well an audience likes them. All of the external factors in the listening venue make a big, big difference. Sticking a bunch of people in an auditorium and playing little snippets of songs to gauge their reactions is an extremely easy deck to stack. So are most other methods of song testing. I've never heard of a method of song testing that wasn't easy to manipulate.

How many music tests have you personally conducted? Or even attended?

Today, stations randomize the order of songs and each group of a total test hears them in different sequences. In many cases, tests are administered individually at the listener's convenience, either on-line or at a research facility, and song order can be totally randomized for each respondent.

However, the simplest test is that of placing the same song on a test in two different positions. The result is two separately taken scores, based on the song being preceded by totally different songs. When the results are tabulated, the differences are almost always within a range that is far less than the margin of error of the overall test... usually within a +/- 1.0 range.

I've conducted or participated in well over 1000 tests, and don't see how a well designed test can be "manipulated". I don't, also, see why a station would pay $40 k for a test and then attempt to distort the results since having a clear read of listener likes and dislikes translates directly into ratings.

In the nit-picking department, while music tests are colloquially called Auditorium Music Tests, they are not conducted in auditoriums. More typically, they are done in a smallish hotel meeting room or perhaps a community center or other intimate (and neutral) location chosen for convenience, safety and familiarity. And of late, many respondents don't even have to go to a test facility and take the test online.

 

[davideduardo]

Just like with WDUV, Easy 97.3 acts as if there is nothing soft since 1999. Norah Jones, Adele, Josh Groban, Michael Buble would all fit their format perfectly.

The head of programming at Summit, the owner of 97.3, is a firm believer in research. So if those artists are not in the library, they did not test with the target audience.

WDUV has removed the easy listening artists from their playlist (Neil Diamond, Barbra Streisand, Barry Manilow, et al) while preserving the rest of the format.

And that is why the jumped from being about 15th in 25-54 two or three years ago to #1 now. They got rid of the music that is not relevant to today's 35-54 age group, which is WDUV's target.

Easy 97.3 offers all of those easy listening artists yet omits many other musically-similar material, such as music by Anne Murray and John Denver. And even more perplexing is the fact that there are also a large number of soft adult contemporary artists mysteriously missing from their playlist.

Again, if the target audience says "I don't want to hear that song on the radio today" they don't play it.

The station has no music by Mariah Carey in their playlist and only one track by Celine Dion is in rotation.

Again, the target audience did not want to hear them.

While these FM soft AC's are similarly-formatted, I don't like how they pick and choose which artists should be added and which ones shouldn't.

Stations program songs, not artists. If no song by an artist passes the minimum score bar in a music test, you won't hear any of them. if some songs pass and others don't, you will just hear the passing ones. Music testing does not include questions about "favorite artists". Its purpose is to determine the playability of individual songs.

If it's going to be a traditional-based soft AC, the format should be offered in its entirety.

But that would mean playing songs your target audience does not want to hear any more. To be playable, a song has to be a "hit" today with your listeners. Many songs that were hits back when they were currents are just unplayable today.

 

[davideduardo]

Yes, they do research, but interestingly, the results are usually the same, month after month and year after year. Why? Because those testing companies always present the same music already heard on classic hits stations to retest to their audiences over and over again.

You have been told that this is not the case over and over in the past. So posting this lie is obviously intentional.

Research companies do not pick the songs to be tested. The station does. And each time a classic hits or other gold-based station tests, they include lots of "what if" songs to see if some older titles that have not been played have benefited from resting and to see if some newer songs are ready to be introduced to the audience. A station may test several hundred songs that they are not currently playing. In the last gold-based test I was involved with, more than 500 songs that were not on the air were tested.

So since the songs are already familiar, the audience will favor those heavily aired songs again and again and........again. And since these are basically the same songs being aired repeatedly, any "new" classics that get presented, will usually get the negative response because of unfamiliarity, even though many of these lost songs were huge and ranked very high in their debut time.

Untrue. Not a fact, as you have been told over and over and over and over and over and over.

Most songs are playable today and nearly all of them were minor or incredible hits on top 40 radio in their heydays, despite these "suits" telling music and radio fans, that they were not.

Again, of the songs that were hits "back then" listeners today don't want to hear most of them. And, again, you have had this explained to you many, many times. You are repeating the same theories repeatedly, hoping for a different outcome. We know what condition that is the classic definition for.

 

[oldies76]

Many songs that were hits back when they were currents are just unplayable today.

Just not true at all. Some comedy, spoken word and novelties yes. But your big Top 40 hits from the past, the vast majority can be played today, JUST AT THE RIGHT TIME. That's the difference between you and I.

YOU are eliminating them all together, while many small stations on FM and AM's are giving them second look, successfully.

You should know that.

 

[davideduardo]

The libraries for AC stations are much smaller than classic hits, since only a certain sound is expected from AC stations and many deserving songs will be left off the plate.

Except for gold-based AC stations, traditional AC and Hot AC stations play currents, which take up a significant percentage of the hourly slots and the total spins. So they can afford to only play the very highest scoring gold that is compatible with the target audience.

 

[Music Lover]

Then clearly, you're meeting the wrong segment of listeners, or your listeners are telling you what they think you want to hear.

When one of my local soft AC's moved away from being "Continuous Lite Favorites" several years ago, I emailed the station to inquire as to why. I never received much response to my inquiry, other than receiving a very short automatic reply which said "Thanks for your feedback. We'll look into your observations". That's why I've always been rather skeptical about who exactly calls the shots.

 

[davideduardo]

Just not true at all. Some comedy, spoken word and novelties yes. But your big Top 40 hits from the past, the vast majority can be played today, JUST AT THE RIGHT TIME. That's the difference between you and I.

YOU are eliminating them all together, while many small stations on FM and AM's are giving them second look, successfully.

You should know that.

What I should know is that if a song was #1 thirty years ago but it gets an average score of 40 on a music test of my listeners today, there is no way in hell that I am going to play a song that will drive away most of my listeners.

 

[davideduardo]

When one of my local soft AC's moved away from being "Continuous Lite Favorites" several years ago, I emailed the station to inquire as to why. I never received much response to my inquiry, other than receiving a very short automatic reply which said "Thanks for your feedback. We'll look into your observations". That's why I've always been rather skeptical about who exactly calls the shots.

Here's my anecdote:

A while back, I changed a "soft" station to an aggressive hit based format. Listeners by the thousands called the first weekend to complain.

At first, we had the whole office staff there to be nice to the former listeners. But the insults were so disgusting that I finally decided to quit listening to the calls and just let the phone ring. We later got lots of mail demanding an explanation. We decided not to answer the mail, either, as our explanation which was revenue-based, would only further upset those folks.

The soft format exited with a 4 share. The new format debuted with a 22.5 share just 20 days after going on the air, and later rose to a 33.5 in a 30+ station market.