Format idea: Hot AC meets AAA?

[tall_guy1]

This is a format that will go deeper than most Hot ACs/CHRs/ACs go and play more "deeper cuts" like Adult Album stations play for alternative/folk rock. For example, a sample hour would be:
Natasha Bedingfield-Hope
James Blunt-High
Discover New Music: Sara Bareilles-She Used to Be Mine
Alesso-Heroes (ft. Tove Lo)
21 Pilots-Stressed Out
Adele-Hello (of course)
Thriving Ivory-Angels on the Moon
Lily Allen-The Fear
Discover New Music: Jess Glynn-Take Me Home
Your ideas on something like this?

 

[davideduardo]

This is a format that will go deeper than most Hot ACs/CHRs/ACs go and play more "deeper cuts" like Adult Album stations play for alternative/folk rock. For example, a sample hour would be:
Natasha Bedingfield-Hope
James Blunt-High
Discover New Music: Sara Bareilles-She Used to Be Mine
Alesso-Heroes (ft. Tove Lo)
21 Pilots-Stressed Out
Adele-Hello (of course)
Thriving Ivory-Angels on the Moon
Lily Allen-The Fear
Discover New Music: Jess Glynn-Take Me Home
Your ideas on something like this?

Here is what I see: in an era when most Hot AC's are very pop/rhythmic this is very much on the rock side. I can't think of many markets today that would have a significant population that would make this a P1 or P2 station.

Also, my belief that the 25-44 female core of Hot AC is not looking for library depth but for instant gratification via the playing of their favorite songs of the moment.

 

[TheBigA]

I've been really influenced by what I'm seeing on the streaming charts these days, and I don't see a hunger for "deeper cuts." The main difference I'm seeing are alternate versions of hit songs performed by contestants on The Voice. Otherwise, the songs people are streaming are exactly the same songs we're playing on broadcast radio.

I agree that the audience for AAA want to hear more current music than one might expect. But they want hit songs. I might suggest mixing in some of the sophisticated country artists like Keith Urban or Chris Stapleton. I see Thomas Rhett's Die A Happy Man showing up near the top of the all-format streaming charts. I see no reason why that song doesn't cross over to pop. He's a country Charlie Puth.

 

[Groove1670]

The pop country crossover has been tried and failed. Pop/ Rhythmic AC stations are the most successful. Women rule AC. As David, said they want well known songs and artists.

Deep cuts would be a waste of
Money and effort, and group targeted wouldn't be a AC listener (or a frequent terrestrial radio listener) anyway.

 

[TheBigA]

The pop country crossover has been tried and failed.

Not true. Country has always been most successful as a hybrid of other formats, which is what it is now. And Adult Contemporary stations like WLTW have added texture to their music by playing Keith Urban, Martina McBride, and the earlier Taylor Swift songs. The backbone of the country format right now is the same women that listen to AC, and in most markets, the AC stations often share listeners with country. No format is more open about the songs and artists than country.

 

[Groove1670]

There is a difference between crossover artists on AC, and a Country/AC hybrid station (once again, those attempts have failed). I should of been more clear in my statement.

 

[TheBigA]

There is a difference between crossover artists on AC, and a Country/AC hybrid station (once again, those attempts have failed). I should of been more clear in my statement.

If you read my post #3, I was proposing mixing in some crossover artists on AC.

 

[Groove1670]

Point taken. My Gaffe.

 

[TheBigA]

Going back to the OP, the problem with using AAA as a model is that it's only moderately successful in a handful of markets, and the demographics are really bad. That's why no one does it.

 

[tall_guy1]

Deep cuts would be a waste of
Money and effort, and group targeted wouldn't be a AC listener (or a frequent terrestrial radio listener) anyway.

Staying out of the pop/country argument, I think there is a large portion of the audience that longs for "deep cuts." One example of a terrestrial radio listener is me who looks at playlists on sites like tunegenie looking for stations who play such titles. AAA stations do that in part, but include deep cuts generally from classic rock or current indie artists, but don't tap into more Hot-AC-ish fare.

 

[TheBigA]

I think there is a large portion of the audience that longs for "deep cuts."

Just because you want something doesn't mean millions of others do. If everyone wanted the same thing, we wouldn't have so many formats. I have no reason to believe there's a "large portion of the audience" that wants it, and I have loads of surveys that prove it.

If we could make more money playing deep cuts, there'd be no reason not to. It's not like we have to buy more records or pay more royalties. It costs the same to play 300 songs or 3000 songs. Computer drives can hold thousands of songs in .wav files no problem. The primary reason stations don't do deep cuts is the listeners tend to switch stations when they do. That's not a good thing. As the sage radio programmer Mr. Spock said in Star Trek: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

[mimo]

As a teen, I listened to a variety of formats, AC, CHR, Modern Rock and what was then called "soul". As much as I loved variety, I didn't want "deep cuts". I only wanted the hits. Deep cuts was what Canadian FM did at the time, and the numbers for those stations were awful. Besides my dad, I didn't know a single FM listener back then. The only reason they did that was because they were restricted by law in the amount of hit music they could play. The average music listeners didn't want to delve too deeply into music, and mostly bought albums because they liked one or 2 songs they heard on the radio. Even when I bought an album, It had to have at least 3 songs that got airplay. Deep cuts might have worked with the 70's progressive FM crowd, but most radio listeners tuned out when it wasn't a hit, especially women, people over 35 and younger teens.

 

[tall_guy1]

As a teen, I listened to a variety of formats, AC, CHR, Modern Rock and what was then called "soul". As much as I loved variety, I didn't want "deep cuts". I only wanted the hits. Deep cuts was what Canadian FM did at the time, and the numbers for those stations were awful. Besides my dad, I didn't know a single FM listener back then. The only reason they did that was because they were restricted by law in the amount of hit music they could play. The average music listeners didn't want to delve too deeply into music, and mostly bought albums because they liked one or 2 songs they heard on the radio. Even when I bought an album, It had to have at least 3 songs that got airplay. Deep cuts might have worked with the 70's progressive FM crowd, but most radio listeners tuned out when it wasn't a hit, especially women, people over 35 and younger teens.

Well, maybe not the way you describe it where its the fourth cut off an album; I know my local NPR station does that, and it is a bore for anyone to listen to except hardcore fans of the bands they play. However, looking at my example hour, there would still be "familiar" songs, alongside hits that were at one time on the Top 40 (Lily Allen "The Fear" for example) and maybe the second or third cut of a new act (like the Jess Glynn song I used, for example.) That way, the recurrents/golds would be mostly first cuts and maybe the "new" hits would be a little deeper. Again, it would model AAA stations, so it wouldn't be "completely" new territory for programmers, as they have a model.

 

[TheBigA]

Again, it would model AAA stations, so it wouldn't be "completely" new territory for programmers, as they have a model.

As I said, it's a bad model that is difficult to sell to advertisers. Unless listeners are paying a monthly subscription fee, it's not practical.

 

[K.M. Richards]

How many times do we have to have this argument before everyone without practical, hands-on experience in programming finally accepts the facts?

There are dozens -- probably hundreds by now -- of threads where someone comes up with the "go deeper" concept and thinks it will attract tons of listenership. Sometimes it's "there are lots of past hits which never get played anymore". Other times it's hybrid formats of different genres. And then there are threads like this which would rely on album cuts that the audience would find unfamiliar but which the poster believes they would sit through.

Get it through your heads, people. The reason these "brilliant ideas" are not implemented is because they all have been tried in the past. And they have failed. Those of us who are either program directors or consultants have seen it so many times, we cringe when we see someone bring it up again as something to be tried.

No radio station's management is going to try something for which there is a history of failure in the past. That is why you don't see your great ideas being adopted. Step back from your emotional involvement and ask yourself: If what you propose is going to be radio's salvation, don't you think one of us already in the business would have thought of it by now?

And I should also point out that AAA is a format which has pretty much failed every time it's been tried (other than a few non-commercials like KCSN in Los Angeles) and modeling any new idea even partially on that format guarantees no one will take you seriously.

We are still happy to explain why these concepts don't work, but understand that it is frustrating for us to have to do it over and over and over and over ...

 

[Groove1670]

Let us try this analogy. There are a group of quilters and they are a very loyal group. They might find a few more interested people to join their group, but the general population doesn't care. So is the case of "Deep Cuts Radio"

The same with radio formats. You have about (on average) 18 minutes to keep a listener. You better present a product that captures their attention.

Yes, some fuss about repetition (more so now because of articles written by people who know nothing about radio).

The typical radio listener doesn't think about "deep cuts" when looking for a radio station (It has been that way for 40 years). They want a song they like (usually the dreaded researched stuff), and something they know well.

NPR is a good example: They have a wide variety of music choices... world Music, instrumental, folk, new songwriters...but yet, they barely make a dent in the ratings. I bet if a group of 25-54 women had to choose between their NPR station (for music) and their local AC station...AC would win.

There is a documentary trailer about free form rock radio that just came out on youtube (I can't find it now). It has a bunch of legendary Disc Jockeys talking about what they played, and there were no rules. (If somebody can find it, please post it). There was one problem, ratings were awful, and revenue well.....

This concept lasted as long as it did because most owners at that time could care less about their FM's (they were duds for the most part).

All of a sudden you has stations like WABB in Mobile, and WHYI in Miami signing on. Listeners were abandoning AM to migrate to this new FM band. Meanwhile, owners of these "B-EZ" and "free form" stations were taking notice.

...and that is today's meaningless dissertation.

 

[TheBigA]

Let us try this analogy. There are a group of quilters and they are a very loyal group. They might find a few more interested people to join their group, but the general population doesn't care. So is the case of "Deep Cuts Radio"

When I suggest Sirius, they point out that Sirius doesn't go deep enough. If a subscription-based operation isn't playing a song, and they'll play anything to get you to sign up, maybe that's a clue.

 

[tall_guy1]

Let us try this analogy. There are a group of quilters and they are a very loyal group. They might find a few more interested people to join their group, but the general population doesn't care. So is the case of "Deep Cuts Radio"

The same with radio formats. You have about (on average) 18 minutes to keep a listener. You better present a product that captures their attention.

Yes, some fuss about repetition (more so now because of articles written by people who know nothing about radio).

The typical radio listener doesn't think about "deep cuts" when looking for a radio station (It has been that way for 40 years). They want a song they like (usually the dreaded researched stuff), and something they know well.

NPR is a good example: They have a wide variety of music choices... world Music, instrumental, folk, new songwriters...but yet, they barely make a dent in the ratings. I bet if a group of 25-54 women had to choose between their NPR station (for music) and their local AC station...AC would win.

There is a documentary trailer about free form rock radio that just came out on youtube (I can't find it now). It has a bunch of legendary Disc Jockeys talking about what they played, and there were no rules. (If somebody can find it, please post it). There was one problem, ratings were awful, and revenue well.....

This concept lasted as long as it did because most owners at that time could care less about their FM's (they were duds for the most part).

All of a sudden you has stations like WABB in Mobile, and WHYI in Miami signing on. Listeners were abandoning AM to migrate to this new FM band. Meanwhile, owners of these "B-EZ" and "free form" stations were taking notice.

...and that is today's meaningless dissertation.

It might have had to do with WHAT they were playing rather the presentation HOW they were playing it. Right now, I think pop is "in" and the folk-ier stuff of a few years ago is "out" so I think AAA's audience is shrinking and there is a new "niche" that can be filled. To a smaller extent 102.3 XLC in Chicago plays more obscure hits from years ago with today's music, but they aren't a ratings "winner" per se, and 103.1 the Fox plays all kinds of obscure songs, but they are just too all over the place to earn much of any market share. I would think some format like the one I mentioned would "work" though, since there is such a large population that listens to things like Spotify or other "streaming" services where they listen to this kind of music...

 

[TheBigA]

since there is such a large population that listens to things like Spotify or other "streaming" services where they listen to this kind of music...

If they are, it's not showing up on the streaming charts that follow what they're listening to. Sure Adele is there, but she's everywhere. 21 Pilots is the #1 song on the rock chart. You have to drill down very far in the streaming charts to some of the artists you're mentioning, and even then, it's not those songs. So if you're going to build a format around what people are streaming, you should first look at the streaming charts. It might surprise you.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Right now, I think pop is "in" and the folk-ier stuff of a few years ago is "out" so I think AAA's audience is shrinking and there is a new "niche" that can be filled.

Been done both ways in the past. Generally failed both ways.

Please, let this not be another thread of "I have an idea" ... "here's why it won't work" ... "I still think it will because I think it will". We are approaching circular argument mode, and people have been banned from here for over-pursuing their "I'm right, the pros are wrong" ideas.