The old KRTH

[davideduardo]

All this bloviating on the board reminds me of one of the reasons why music radio is so dead today.

To bloviate is to speak empty or exaggerated words with an absence of facts. That's not the case in all of this thread, except in your own posts.

The facts are different, and show that what you think is wrong with radio is both self-centered and naive.

Fact: Any radio station with a competitive signal must direct its programming at some group of listeners advertisers wish to reach. The suggestions and implications in your posts do not take this into account as you talk about formats and presentations that attract small or unsalable audiences.

Fact: The LA market is now approaching 45% Hispanic. Of those Hispanics, over two-thirds speak Spanish and over half are Spanish dominant. Thinking that any large part this huge group of people... over 5,000,000 of them... want to hear 50's and 60's American oldies is disingenuous. With an average age that is under 30, less than 15% are even in the age group that could have heard those songs when they were first released.

Fact: Radio has been using research for going on 85 years now, so it is a bit late to blame research for the problems you perceive radio to have. And individual stations have been doing proprietary research for about 70 years, starting apparently with that Seiler guy at at WRC in DC in the 40's.

Fact: Radio research is all about finding out what listeners do and what stations should or shouldn't do to get more of them. You are saying that radio stations should not find out what listeners want or what they don't want.

Fact: Tastes change. Population groups grow or shrink. Music genres come and go or broaden or contract in appeal. Radio has to follow listener preferences, changing as they do.

Fact: Your "facts" are inaccurate perceptions based on your own limited knowledge of reality. FOr example, you stated that the Art Laboe show was nationally syndicated and did well in all demographics when, in fact, neither contention is true. So I assume many of your other feelings about radio are equally unsubstantiated.

Fact: Playing some old radio tapes for a different generation has considerable novelty value for a very brief time. I'm sure that you would find many Millennials who would sit through a screening of an Ed Sullivan show out of that same curiosity, but it is unlikely they would want to see one of those shows every day. Your example is defective in not just that way, but I'll leave it at that.

 

[semoochie]

To bloviate is to speak empty or exaggerated words with an absence of facts. That's not the case in all of this thread, except in your own posts.

The facts are different, and show that what you think is wrong with radio is both self-centered and naive.

Fact: Any radio station with a competitive signal must direct its programming at some group of listeners advertisers wish to reach. The suggestions and implications in your posts do not take this into account as you talk about formats and presentations that attract small or unsalable audiences.

Fact: The LA market is now approaching 45% Hispanic. Of those Hispanics, over two-thirds speak Spanish and over half are Spanish dominant. Thinking that any large part this huge group of people... over 5,000,000 of them... want to hear 50's and 60's American oldies is disingenuous. With an average age that is under 30, less than 15% are even in the age group that could have heard those songs when they were first released.

Fact: Radio has been using research for going on 85 years now, so it is a bit late to blame research for the problems you perceive radio to have. And individual stations have been doing proprietary research for about 70 years, starting apparently with that Seiler guy at at WRC in DC in the 40's.

Fact: Radio research is all about finding out what listeners do and what stations should or shouldn't do to get more of them. You are saying that radio stations should not find out what listeners want or what they don't want.

Fact: Tastes change. Population groups grow or shrink. Music genres come and go or broaden or contract in appeal. Radio has to follow listener preferences, changing as they do.

Fact: Your "facts" are inaccurate perceptions based on your own limited knowledge of reality. FOr example, you stated that the Art Laboe show was nationally syndicated and did well in all demographics when, in fact, neither contention is true. So I assume many of your other feelings about radio are equally unsubstantiated.

Fact: Playing some old radio tapes for a different generation has considerable novelty value for a very brief time. I'm sure that you would find many Millennials who would sit through a screening of an Ed Sullivan show out of that same curiosity, but it is unlikely they would want to see one of those shows every day. Your example is defective in not just that way, but I'll leave it at that.

A good example or your last paragraph is the Smothers Brothers reunion special. The ratings were good enough to encourage CBS to run it as a regular program and viewership quickly declined.

 

[davideduardo]

A good example or your last paragraph is the Smothers Brothers reunion special. The ratings were good enough to encourage CBS to run it as a regular program and viewership quickly declined.

... or this weekend's epic flop of the Ben-Hur remake. But it was huge in 1959!

 

[Vinnie Daniels]

Fact: Radio research is all about finding out what listeners do and what stations should or shouldn't do to get more of them. You are saying that radio stations should not find out what listeners want or what they don't want.

Fact: Tastes change. Population groups grow or shrink. Music genres come and go or broaden or contract in appeal. Radio has to follow listener preferences, changing as they do.



Fact: Playing some old radio tapes for a different generation has considerable novelty value for a very brief time. .

Fact: You don't like the fact that I've come here to this board to challenge you in any way.

So if radio research is about finding out what listeners do and what stations should do or not do to get more of them, then enlighten me on this, Mr. Eduardo ... why aren't they doing it? You incorrectly ascribe to me that I don't believe in any of this. That's not true. Guys like Bob Hamilton and Phil Hall (late of KRTH) are still consider geniuses to this day because they knew how to get those answers. They employed the use of the talent both on and off the air that worked for the radio station. They had fun coming up with the answers to those questions as they tried on a new themed weekend for size. They got involved in the community with various worthwhile charities. The on-air talent became friends and really, like family to their listeners.

As for tastes changing, who determines that? They change by the week. Hollywood and Radio are always leagues behind in catching up to styles and trends. Regardless of styles changing, people are turning on the radio to be entertained.

That brings me to your last point about me playing some old radio tapes for a different generation which has considerable novelty value. I don't call ABC by The Jackson Five, or Don't Go Breaking My Heart by Elton John and Kiki Dee or Rock Around The Clock to be "novelty." Most would think of it as classic music. And how do you know what kind of value it held for them as they were listening? Seems like they were loving it. I'm not sure if you've ever ventured outside of your bubble long enough to actually have an on-air or programming career. Truly successful stations have learned one thing. Sometimes you gotta just program from the gut.

As for looking at an AARP cover of Cyndi Lauper and realizing that you're getting old. What does that have to do with a song she recorded back in 1984? When you listen to "Time After Time," she'll always be that Cyndi to you. I don't get peoples faulty thinking along these lines. Someone also made a comment about how they're glad K-EARTH is doing what they're doing. Yeah, and it takes no actual genius to do what they're doing, which is maybe why they aren't connecting with people in the same way that listeners a generation or two ago were being connected with.

 

[davideduardo]

Fact: You don't like the fact that I've come here to this board to challenge you in any way.

But you are not challenging me. You are posting stuff that is not true today, some things that were never true and some things that are inaccurate. I am just pointing them out.

So if radio research is about finding out what listeners do and what stations should do or not do to get more of them, then enlighten me on this, Mr. Eduardo ... why aren't they doing it?

But they do. What evidence to you have that songs "everyone" will like on a format are not being played? Or that 60's style DJ presentations would be big today?

Guys like Bob Hamilton and Phil Hall (late of KRTH) are still consider geniuses to this day because they knew how to get those answers.

But neither could sustain their programming style against the target demographics of the station, so they parted company with KRTH.

They employed the use of the talent both on and off the air that worked for the radio station. They had fun coming up with the answers to those questions as they tried on a new themed weekend for size. They got involved in the community with various worthwhile charities. The on-air talent became friends and really, like family to their listeners.

And that worked, for a while, in the years they were at the helm. Today, our friends are on FaceBook and talent is perceived by the newer generations as getting in the way of the music and being hokey and dated.

As for tastes changing, who determines that? They change by the week. Hollywood and Radio are always leagues behind in catching up to styles and trends. Regardless of styles changing, people are turning on the radio to be entertained.

Broad tastes take much longer than a week to change. Disco began some time around 1974, but it was not until 1978 that we saw an all-disco station emerge and win big. The reason is that the market was not ready; there was a niche interest that had to grow to be broadly viable.

Radio stations reflect taste. Those that try to make taste generally fail under the "pioneers get shot" theory of innovation.

That bring me to your last point about me playing some old radio tapes for a different generation has considerable novelty value. I don't call ABC by The Jackson Five, or Don't Go Breaking My Heart by Elton John and Kiki Dee or Rock Around The Clock to be "novelty."

I said that the set of music you described complete with DJs has novelty value for some people who did not live through the era.

Most would think of it as classic music.

And some would just consider the music old and even unfamiliar, particularly if pop music is not their thing to begin with.

I'm not sure if you've ever ventured outside of your bubble long enough to actually have an on-air or programming career.

I programmed and owned my first #1 radio station in a major market when I was 17. I did it by programming based on observation, interviews with potential listeners and my own skills as a neophyte programmer.

Truly successful stations have learned one thing. Sometimes you gotta just program from the gut.

The flow, texture, personality of a station are all part of the art of radio. Putting it together to reach the greatest number of people is the science of radio. It takes both.

Just look at how the "Jack" format came about in some cold place in Canada: a programmer realized that many listeners were burnt out on motor-mouth jocks and top 40 playlists and wanted something that was music intensive without any live jocks at all. The concept worked, and when well executed (the art of it) lives on successfully in markets as big as LA.

As for looking at an AARP cover of Cyndi Lauper and realizing that you're getting old. What does that have to do with a song she recorded back in 1984? When you listen to "Time After Time," she'll always be that Cyndi to you. I don't get peoples faulty thinking along these lines.

That's because you are making a faulty analysis. Look at other AARP Magazine covers; they show contemporaries of the reader base who are doing great, fun and exciting things with their lives. It's not about thinking of "Girls Just Wanna' Have Fun". It is all about saying "look what people like you are doing!"

What would you rather the AARP put on the magazine cover? Geezers in walkers or pictures of funeral homes with headlines of "plan your burial now"?

Someone also made a comment about how they're glad K-EARTH is doing what they're doing. Yeah, and it takes no actual genius to do what they're doing, which is maybe why they aren't connecting with people in the same way that listeners a generation or two ago were being connected with.

And you know this how? KRTH is "connecting" well enough for just over 25% of the 12+ population of LA to listen regularly, week after week. That ties them for second place in reach (cume) and puts them within just a couple of percent of first place. In real numbers, that is 3 million people in the LA MSA who listen... which is a high water market for KRTH, I believe.

As to "taking no genius": were it so simple, KRTH would not be in the top 5 radio stations in 25-54, occasionally hitting #1, with its current programming.

Just for fun, I went back to 1998 and found KRTH reached 12% of the 12+ population and 1.2 million people weekly. Going back to 1988, they reached 10.8% of the population and cumed 1.0 million. Back another decade and they had a 2.5 share, good for 14th, and reached under 800,000 persons.

 

[michael hagerty]

Guys like Bob Hamilton and Phil Hall (late of KRTH) are still consider geniuses to this day because they knew how to get those answers.

I'm not sure if you've ever ventured outside of your bubble long enough to actually have an on-air or programming career. Truly successful stations have learned one thing. Sometimes you gotta just program from the gut.

As for looking at an AARP cover of Cyndi Lauper and realizing that you're getting old. What does that have to do with a song she recorded back in 1984? When you listen to "Time After Time," she'll always be that Cyndi to you. I don't get peoples faulty thinking along these lines. Someone also made a comment about how they're glad K-EARTH is doing what they're doing. Yeah, and it takes no actual genius to do what they're doing, which is maybe why they aren't connecting with people in the same way that listeners a generation or two ago were being connected with.

Assuming Vinnie's being banned doesn't stop him from being able to read this, I'd like to just offer the following counter-points.

1. Bob and Phil's KRTH was a Top 10 station---most of the time. It did slide down to 15th or so during each of those gentlemen's tenures. It is consistently in the Top 5 today and is #3 as of this writing.

2. David Eduardo is better known as David Gleason, who has programmed stations in both hemispheres. He started out programming from the gut and learned (as we all did) that it's better to find out what the audience that you want---wants, and then deliver it.

3. What it has to do with is that Cyndi's audience has aged----and this morning's appearance of AARP Magazine on my kitchen counter prompted me to do the math. KRTH's move to 90s music is, if anything, a bit overdue.

4. As for "not connecting with people in the same way that listeners a generation or two were being connected with"....it's 3rd overall now. At its highest rating in the era you're talking about, it was 9th. Looks like they're far better at connecting now.

 

[frankberry]

I have lifted the ban on Vinnie with the understanding that he will be a little less aggressive.

Welcome back Vinnie!

Frank

 

[davideduardo]

4. As for "not connecting with people in the same way that listeners a generation or two were being connected with"....it's 3rd overall now. At its highest rating in the era you're talking about, it was 9th. Looks like they're far better at connecting now.

In defense of Vinnie (yeah, right) I think he was thinking that listeners were more engaged or involved with the old KRTH than they might be now.

As to the idea of quantifying engagement, I was on an Arbitron committee a few years back that tried to evaluate what an "engagement metric" might be. We came up with no realistic solution or answer and determined that the metric was not needed.

I think that in today's multimedia Internet world, nothing is as engaging as radio was in the 60's and 70s'. At that time, as one jingle package said, you had "your friends on the radio". Today, our friends are on social media. We text them back and forth. We tweet, retweet and follow. We don't have "friends" who talk at us but who we can not answer. Things have changed, and comparing, or worse, expecting, radio to be used as it was 40 years ago is disingenuous.

I am a bit sorry Vinnie is not able to post his reply to you. It would have been interesting to read.

 

[davideduardo]

I have lifted the ban on Vinnie with the understanding that he will less aggressive.

Welcome back Vinnie!

Frank

Thanks, Frank.

I am interested in reasonable contrarian points of view... and was not even offended by some of his sharper statements. The dialogue is fun when it is not hostile.

 

[Vinnie Daniels]

As to "taking no genius": were it so simple, KRTH would not be in the top 5 radio stations in 25-54, occasionally hitting #1, with its current programming.

Just for fun, I went back to 1998 and found KRTH reached 12% of the 12+ population and 1.2 million people weekly. Going back to 1988, they reached 10.8% of the population and cumed 1.0 million. Back another decade and they had a 2.5 share, good for 14th, and reached under 800,000 persons.

Anyway I'm back, and just got done catching up on posts.

First off, I'm not denying their ratings success. I've tracked it over the years. In fact, here is a little section of what Wikipedia says about KRTH-FM:

"With its demographic aging and ratings sagging, K-Earth, along with most oldies outlets across the country, began adding 1970s songs into the playlist in the early 2000s. Artists such as Stevie Wonder, Elton John, ABBA, the Bee Gees, Earth, Wind & Fire, and Peter Frampton were combined with 1960s artists such as The Supremes and the Beatles. Though still repetitive, the playlist was also rotated a bit more, with a few rediscovered oldies brought "out of the vault" on occasion, while other songs were "rested" from the rotation. This process was taken a step further in 2007 with a few early 1980s' songs added to the mix by artists such as Hall & Oates, Phil Collins, and Michael Jackson.

Whether by luck, or due to the musical changes implemented, by the end of 2007, K-Earth had improved its ratings substantially and was once again a Top 10 Los Angeles station. More importantly from an advertising standpoint, the station was attracting a younger demographic. In 2010, K-Earth began adding songs from the late 1980s and early 1990s into its mix from artists such as Janet Jackson, The Bangles, Deniece Williams and The Police. KRTH still plays an occasional pre-1964 song such as "Shout", "Jailhouse Rock", or "Tequila" (about one every other hour)."

Go back to the second paragraph. I have always contended that it was by luck. My reason: this is an oldies or a classic hit format we're talking about. The hard work was done by the people who originally built that stations playlist from the beginning. When I say it doesn't take a lot of talent to determine today's oldies playlist, it's because how much talent does it take to keep whittling it down? Eventually, you're gonna have it so whittled down and focused tested, that you're gonna arrive at the 200 songs that are gonna end up working for you. I'm not saying anything against the man, but guys like Jhani Kaye in 2006 just took credit for the natural process of musical attrition. I think changing the language away from "oldies" to "classic rock" or "classic hits" did more for them than anything.

 

[Vinnie Daniels]

The dialogue is fun when it is not hostile.

Assumptive things were said that brought on those sharp statements, otherwise I'm not one that usually goes down that road. Sure didn't intend to insult any others along the way. Anyway, yes Frank. Thanks for having me back.

 

[chrocket87]

I find the musical progression of Classic Hits/Oldies to be amazing. Just 15 years ago, large market stations used to be heavily concentrated on 60s and marching into the 70s. Now, Classic Hits stations are marching into the 90s and even playing a song from when I was in college ("Forget You"). I'm just astounded as to how fast the format has changed and the acceleration of its progression through time.

 

[michael hagerty]

Anyway I'm back, and just got done catching up on posts.

First off, I'm not denying their ratings success. I've tracked it over the years. In fact, here is a little section of what Wikipedia says about KRTH-FM:

"With its demographic aging and ratings sagging, K-Earth, along with most oldies outlets across the country, began adding 1970s songs into the playlist in the early 2000s. Artists such as Stevie Wonder, Elton John, ABBA, the Bee Gees, Earth, Wind & Fire, and Peter Frampton were combined with 1960s artists such as The Supremes and the Beatles. Though still repetitive, the playlist was also rotated a bit more, with a few rediscovered oldies brought "out of the vault" on occasion, while other songs were "rested" from the rotation. This process was taken a step further in 2007 with a few early 1980s' songs added to the mix by artists such as Hall & Oates, Phil Collins, and Michael Jackson.

Whether by luck, or due to the musical changes implemented, by the end of 2007, K-Earth had improved its ratings substantially and was once again a Top 10 Los Angeles station. More importantly from an advertising standpoint, the station was attracting a younger demographic. In 2010, K-Earth began adding songs from the late 1980s and early 1990s into its mix from artists such as Janet Jackson, The Bangles, Deniece Williams and The Police. KRTH still plays an occasional pre-1964 song such as "Shout", "Jailhouse Rock", or "Tequila" (about one every other hour)."

Go back to the second paragraph. I have always contended that it was by luck. My reason: this is an oldies or a classic hit format we're talking about. The hard work was done by the people who originally built that stations playlist from the beginning. When I say it doesn't take a lot of talent to determine today's oldies playlist, it's because how much talent does it take to keep whittling it down? Eventually, you're gonna have it so whittled down and focused tested, that you're gonna arrive at the 200 songs that are gonna end up working for you. I'm not saying anything against the man, but guys like Jhani Kaye in 2006 just took credit for the natural process of musical attrition. I think changing the language away from "oldies" to "classic rock" or "classic hits" did more for them than anything.

Vinnie:

Welcome back, sincerely.

My grandpa gave me three rules in life:

1. Never buy food from a clown named Ronald.

2. Never trust a nun with a tattoo.

3. Never use Wikipedia for source material. Why? Because just plain folks write the Wikipedia entries and they stay there until someone catches it. A few years ago, I had to clean up the wiki for KRLA because someone confused it with KHJ and wrote a whole history about how KRLA was Boss Radio with Morgan, Steele, Harve, Tuna....and a few people who never worked at either KRLA or KHJ.

The truth is (and this is from someone who's been in the business 45 years and started by programming with his gut), no station succeeds purely on luck. An entire format certainly doesn't. And the "Classic Hits" as opposed to "Oldies" format took off nationwide at the same time, with similar successes in most markets.

Also: The hard work is done day in and day out by the people there NOW. In 1986, that was Bob Hamilton. In 1988, it was Phil Hall. You could probably hold the meeting of today's regular KRTH listeners who are in the sales demo who listened to Bob and Phil's KRTH in a phone booth---except they had those then and they don't now. Tempus has done what tempus does...it fugited.

And finally: You contradict yourself. Which is it? Are they whittling down Bob's library or are they adding 70s, 80s and now 90s music? And if you do arrive at 200 (or whatever number) songs that end up working for you, on what planet is that a bad thing?

 

[michael hagerty]

Assumptive things were said that brought on those sharp statements, otherwise I'm not one that usually goes down that road.
.

Translation: It was David's fault.

 

[michael hagerty]

I find the musical progression of Classic Hits/Oldies to be amazing. Just 15 years ago, large market stations used to be heavily concentrated on 60s and marching into the 70s. Now, Classic Hits stations are marching into the 90s and even playing a song from when I was in college ("Forget You"). I'm just astounded as to how fast the format has changed and the acceleration of its progression through time.

chrocket: We've talked about this before in another epic KRTH thread. The progression was distorted by KRTH (and other oldies stations around the country) standing still with 1964-1972 for so long. To be successful, you need 40-year-old listeners, not 40-year-old records. But Boomers calcified in their musical tastes more than any generation I can recall. There was enormous resistance to mid-late 70s music among Baby Boomers and KRTH, under Mike Phillips and especially Jay Coffey, stood frozen like a deer in headlights. Jhani Kaye had a good eight years of cautiously expanding and now we're here...debating whether playing 90s music is a good idea when a 42-year-old graduated high school in 1992 and college in 1996.

 

[michael hagerty]

I think that in today's multimedia Internet world, nothing is as engaging as radio was in the 60's and 70s'. At that time, as one jingle package said, you had "your friends on the radio". Today, our friends are on social media. We text them back and forth. We tweet, retweet and follow. We don't have "friends" who talk at us but who we can not answer. Things have changed, and comparing, or worse, expecting, radio to be used as it was 40 years ago is disingenuous.

David:

Yeah, but...

The jock that had a 40 share in teens? That meant 60 percent of the teens weren't listening to him. As long as that other 60 didn't end up all in one place, or split 45-15, he was the king, but the fact was that most didn't care.

I've said it before: The audience has been telling us for more than 50 years to shut up and play the music. Not just the music, the hits. And not just the hits, but the REAL hits. Top 40 KFWB gets eaten by a less-talky, tighter KRLA after only five years, which lost to a Boss 30 and a rigid format of jocks who learned to say it all in seven seconds after only two.

Most didn't want friends on the radio then----and fewer want, much less expect, it now.

 

[Vinnie Daniels]

Translation: It was David's fault.

No. Not at all. I mean that I let it be known and did admit to Mr. Berry in an email that I did take some digs at David and promised to be tame in the future if he were agreeable to lift the ban. I also asked Mr. Berry to review David's tone in his post prior to mine to determine if that didn't cut both ways. There. You know all that I know. No need for further translation or discussion. Personally, I'd rather talk radio.

 

[davideduardo]

First off, I'm not denying their ratings success. I've tracked it over the years. In fact, here is a little section of what Wikipedia says about KRTH-FM:

The Wiki was deemed speculative and I believe it has been or will be removed.

The programming in the period leading up to the start of the PPM in mid-2008 showed KRTH in the higher ranks on 12+, but it was around 15th in 25-54 and aging rapidly. In Spring of 2008 it was 11th in 12+ and 15th in 25-54.

In Spring of 2007, it was 12th in 12+ and 11th in 25-54. In general, a weaker 25-54 position than was desired.

The revenue was, in fact, falling, not rising as stated in the Wiki.

The real rejuvenation of KRTH occurred when Rick Thomas came in as PD and made the station more up tempo, discarding the last 7 or 8 years of a sound that was very AC in texture but based on old music.

Go back to the second paragraph. I have always contended that it was by luck. My reason: this is an oldies or a classic hit format we're talking about.

Which? Oldies is a format, and Classic Hits is another. KRTH stopped being an oldies station when the percentage of 70's dominated the list. KRTH tried to do this gradually, when the ratings showed they needed to do it with a dramatic cut away from the 60's.

The hard work was done by the people who originally built that stations playlist from the beginning. When I say it doesn't take a lot of talent to determine today's oldies playlist, it's because how much talent does it take to keep whittling it down?

The hardest work at a successful station is sustaining the success. Whatever KRTH did in the 70's and 80's and 90's is irrelevant. They wanted a 25-54 core, and now they have it... and it is made up of people who, in the 90's, were still listening to CHR stations, not KRTH. Those 25-54 folks they had long ago are now over 55 and of no use to the success of the station. And for today's listener, the heritage of all those early years is of no value or interest.

Eventually, you're gonna have it so whittled down and focused tested, that you're gonna arrive at the 200 songs that are gonna end up working for you.

And if that makes you Top 5 in 25-54, what is wrong with that? It is obviously what 3,000.000 people like to hear.

Oh, music is not tested in focus groups.

I'm not saying anything against the man, but guys like Jhani Kaye in 2006 just took credit for the natural process of musical attrition.

I really disagree. Jhani changed the texture and flow of the station, and made the tough decision to abandon the Beach Boys and The British Invasion in favor of much newer material over a period of years. He rescued a station where the owners knew they had a problem to the extent that they talked with some of the best programmers in America before hiring Jhani to make the changes they needed to keep from sinking even lower in the sales demos.

I think changing the language away from "oldies" to "classic rock" or "classic hits" did more for them than anything.

"Classic Rock" is not the same format as "Classic Hits". Classic rock is KLOS and The Sound. Classic Hits is KRTH. Oldies is 60's based pop hits. Three different formats. Whatever they call it (and the change to "classic hits" was mostly an off-air sales issue to get away from the "geezer station" image) it's about the right music. And that takes great skill.

 

[davideduardo]

The jock that had a 40 share in teens? That meant 60 percent of the teens weren't listening to him. As long as that other 60 didn't end up all in one place, or split 45-15, he was the king, but the fact was that most didn't care

You hit on a key point. Even in the 60's, Top 40 was not listened to by half or more of the listeners in a market. Whether due to ethnicity, age or culture, many preferred MOR or country or r&b or regional Mexican or other formats and never knew the top 40 hits.

So when the bitchin' goes on about no station serving the 55 and over folks with real oldies, they are forgetting that a boatload of folks never liked the music to begin with.

 

[michael hagerty]

You hit on a key point. Even in the 60's, Top 40 was not listened to by half or more of the listeners in a market. Whether due to ethnicity, age or culture, many preferred MOR or country or r&b or regional Mexican or other formats and never knew the top 40 hits.

So when the bitchin' goes on about no station serving the 55 and over folks with real oldies, they are forgetting that a boatload of folks never liked the music to begin with.

And then factor in attrition---how many people in the upper demos have changed their habits, their listening preferences, and (sorry to bring it up, but always a factor in upper demos)...died.

76 million Americans were born during the Baby Boom (1946-1964). By 2012 (the latest numbers available), 11 million of them had died. It's been offset by immigrants born in the same years who've come here, but as you've pointed out, David, that doesn't equate to the same musical tastes.