WAAF

[macattack]

YouTube views is an ineffective gauge of popularity. I can set my player on repeat and drive up the views to a million, and I don't even have to listen. You can't even use YouTube views as an indication that the music is any good. They receive zero airplay because there's no real demand for their music. If they're as popular as Cage The Elephant, perhaps they should hire a publicist. Especially if they don't get label support. Perhaps that publicist could get them an appearance on Seth Myers or some other late night show. Perhaps they should release a lot more music and drive up views. That's how you create demand.

I don't think YouTube works that way, I think it registers one view per account or IP address to reduce abuse of its system. I suppose if you reset your IP and don't log in you could abuse it, but I think YouTube has a safeguard against that workaround as well.

Views aren't gospel but for better or worse they're reliable enough that Billboard takes them into account for the Hot 100 and other charts. They can't just be dismissed out of hand.

Also, I thought it was obvious I was using Cage the Elephant as a bellwether not to imply that Neck Deep is as popular as they are, which is madness. If anything, Neck Deep is probably closest to where The Interrupters were before "She's Kerosene" exploded. They're opening for blink-182 on their newest tour so I guess we're about to find out whether Neck Deep has a "She's Kerosene" in them or not.

The Interrupters are opening for the HellaMega tour as well so I expect a third single to be announced (I don't think their cover of "bad guy" lying around on Cool New Music is it) and get one hell of a push to prove "She's Kerosene" wasn't a fluke.

If the Interrupters, signed to Hellcat of all indie labels, can score an alt hit any punk band can still do it. If you feel otherwise that's fine.

I'm tired of laying out a case for a band I don't even like at this point. Back to the topic now...

 

[davideduardo]

I don't think YouTube works that way, I think it registers one view per account or IP address to reduce abuse of its system. I suppose if you reset your IP and don't log in you could abuse it, but I think YouTube has a safeguard against that workaround as well.

YouTube has some rules. They apparently still allow multiple plays in a session to be logged, but with a limit factor. Separate visits from the same ISP are counted as plays, no matter how many times a person comes back to play the same song over.

Otherwise, how could "Despacito" have as many plays as the total population of the planet over age 10?

Views aren't gospel but for better or worse they're reliable enough that Billboard takes them into account for the Hot 100 and other charts. They can't just be dismissed out of hand.

Yes, but songs with minimal views, such as those below a few million, are not significant. Since the business model of labels is based on number of streaming requests, it is important to count each play accurately

 

[davideduardo]

Huh? The stations themselves don't have to do the research. They can either get it from their corporate office, or they can get it from a consultant. In most formats, they also get it from the record labels. I can show you dozens of emails from labels quoting research about their songs. But since the labels don't invest in rock, it's not being done. The easiest way for any station to do music research is to look at streaming charts. You can see very quickly and easily what music is connecting with the most people. But it's less effective with rock because the music is so fragmented. There are only a handful of consensus songs.

The problem with streaming data is that it is not specifically linked to your station. A song may get lots of plays, but not with your audience. And the distinctions are not easy to make, as running cluster / factor analysis on a "real" music test will show. It is not unusual for your listeners to like a song, but not to want it or expect it on your station.

And stations do share research. At one time, when overseeing a country station in Tallahassee, we could not afford frequent music tests. However, we shared resources with three other area stations... one also in the Panhandle, one in SW GA, and one in SE AL. We each paid 1/4 of the cost of two annual tests, and participated in the creation of the test lists. Since the markets were substantially the same, we were able to do four tests a year for a bit more than $1,000 a month per station. Our consultant set this up, but the local implementation was done by our programming staff.

Many bigger companies do larger market research, and then that data is shared with stations with the same format in similar markets in the region.

 

[TheBigA]

The problem with streaming data is that it is not specifically linked to your station. A song may get lots of plays, but not with your audience.

Correct, it's national data, just as the charts give a national look at music, rather than specific to a market.

 

[Retro]

Not to be that guy, but it's WWBX. WBMX is now the call letters for a station in Chicago.

Yes, even as Mix had those call laters for just under 27 years!

 

[Retro]

Explain how that's an improvement for the people of Boston. I have no problem with non-coms. But why EMF? Why not the rock fans of Boston collectively raise the money it takes to buy the station, and program a rock station better than the corporate folks. It's being done right now in Seattle.

Well, with the exception of the same 10 songs in a row, I personally would welcome it! Back when I lived just South of Downtown, I could pick up WBRU quite well too, though.

 

[Retro]

There's really one motivated seller right now in radio, and they currently own stations in the Worcester market. I'd expect THEY will be sold before WAAF.

Didn't WAAF just recently hire a new PD? He could tinker and change things around (to make it a much better Active Rock station.) or just keep it the same instead.

 

[macattack]

Didn't WAAF just recently hire a new PD? He could tinker and change things around (to make it a much better Active Rock station.) or just keep it the same instead.

Yeah, they hired Joe Calgaro last year. He has an extensive Active Rock background, starting at Green Bay's heritage active WZOR from 1999-2012 and then moved to Milwaukee's active rocker WHQG until 2018 when WAAF hired him. He has been a PD at every stop.

By the end of his run at WHQG he had turned that station into a juggernaut, with 7 shares on occasion. I assume Entercom is hoping he'll prove to be a turnaround expert.

 

[Least]

I just digested posts from Dave and The Big A, and I thank you for engaging the discussion in an interesting manner. To answer The Big A, I do pay for XM through my Dish subscription. You seem to lose track of my point. Yes, advertisers pay for FM. But, they pay based on a return of listeners. This goes full circle back to my main point. Rock stations that advertise as modern rock are failing because they don't play new music. That's why it's not gaining younger listeners. FM hasn't played new music, so younger people go to what is geared towards theirgeneration. Right now Pop and Country are doing just that.

For Dave, I disagree about young people going to radio to learn new music. It's still the easiest way to find a new song. Simply put, a combination of the record companies and FM radio companies aren't pushing it. As for the fragmantation, that doesn't seem to be an issue with Pop. Despite ratings, Kiss and Amp play somewhat different styles of Pop, but they still play new music. In my opinion, it still culminates with new music.

 

[TheBigA]

Rock stations that advertise as modern rock are failing because they don't play new music. That's why it's not gaining younger listeners. FM hasn't played new music, so younger people go to what is geared towards theirgeneration. Right now Pop and Country are doing just that.

I think you're making an assumption there that young people only want to hear new music, and that's not true. The classic rock station in Philadelphia performs very well with people in their teens and twenties. I go to a lot of concerts, and I see how young people react and respond to some classic rock when bands cover them. They know it, respect it, and like it. Playing music just because it's new is meaningless. What's important (and I think you'll agree with this) is to play new music that's great and relevant and engaging. The goal is to play consensus songs that all listeners agree on, and that's hard to do with current rock.

You're also making a generalization about FM radio that isn't correct. The percentage of new music played on active rock stations varies from market to market, depending on research and competition. There is no evidence that increasing the percentage of new songs on WAAF would result in an increase in ratings. I think the reason new rock isn't gaining new listeners is because other genres are making better music, and they're doing a better job of promoting it. In the meantime, there are consensus hit songs by well-known bands that are guaranteed to attract the desired audience, and that's what this station plays, along with about 20 or so new songs.

I don't believe adding more unknown songs by unknown bands will improve the ratings at this station. What they need to do is improve the station itself, with a stronger morning and afternoon show. They're not going to be a 4 share station because of the signal and other competition in the market. That's a reality they seem comfortable with, and not only in Boston, but other markets.

 

[davideduardo]

I just digested posts from Dave and The Big A, and I thank you for engaging the discussion in an interesting manner. To answer The Big A, I do pay for XM through my Dish subscription. You seem to lose track of my point. Yes, advertisers pay for FM. But, they pay based on a return of listeners. This goes full circle back to my main point. Rock stations that advertise as modern rock are failing because they don't play new music. That's why it's not gaining younger listeners. FM hasn't played new music, so younger people go to what is geared towards theirgeneration. Right now Pop and Country are doing just that.

For Dave, I disagree about young people going to radio to learn new music. It's still the easiest way to find a new song. Simply put, a combination of the record companies and FM radio companies aren't pushing it. As for the fragmantation, that doesn't seem to be an issue with Pop. Despite ratings, Kiss and Amp play somewhat different styles of Pop, but they still play new music. In my opinion, it still culminates with new music.

It comes right back on the record labels. Pop and CHR are thriving because there is plenty of good music that has consensus appeal. In fact, there is so much that in CHR, there is enough good new music to have more rhythmic CHR stations in markets that also have a more traditional CHR approach.

Not so with rock. Nowhere near the production, and most of the songs are polarizing, with some listeners to the genre liking them, some feeling neutral about them and some totally hating them. So if you know that most songs will be disliked or rejected my more than half the potential listeners, you don't play it.

CHR stations frequently have more "good songs" than they can fit in their playlist structure; those songs are kept until there is a place to play them.

 

[CTListener]

It comes right back on the record labels. Pop and CHR are thriving because there is plenty of good music that has consensus appeal. In fact, there is so much that in CHR, there is enough good new music to have more rhythmic CHR stations in markets that also have a more traditional CHR approach.

Not so with rock. Nowhere near the production, and most of the songs are polarizing, with some listeners to the genre liking them, some feeling neutral about them and some totally hating them. So if you know that most songs will be disliked or rejected my more than half the potential listeners, you don't play it.

CHR stations frequently have more "good songs" than they can fit in their playlist structure; those songs are kept until there is a place to play them.

You do realize that the rock partisans are likely to argue that there are no good songs in rhythmic genres and that the music (insert pejorative here: Auto-Tuned, talentless, lacking in melody, lacking in instrumental virtuosity, etc.) only seems to be popular because radio is force-feeding it to a gullible young audience, don't you? And the circular argument will go on and on and on.

 

[MarkW]

Yeah, they hired Joe Calgaro last year. He has an extensive Active Rock background, starting at Green Bay's heritage active WZOR from 1999-2012 and then moved to Milwaukee's active rocker WHQG until 2018 when WAAF hired him. He has been a PD at every stop.

By the end of his run at WHQG he had turned that station into a juggernaut, with 7 shares on occasion. I assume Entercom is hoping he'll prove to be a turnaround expert.

WLZR/WHQG in Milwaukee and WAAF in Boston have had other PDs in common over the years. Keith Hastings immediately comes to mind.

When he arrived at WHQG, the station was an 80's-based rocker, similar to Rock 92.9. He did a nice job evolving & modernizing the station's sound as 80's butt rock / hair band fatigue set in. Ironically, I don't believe it was his Active Rock chops that landed him the gig at WHQG. It was his association with NE Wisconsin heritage rock stalwart 105.7 WAPL.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't believe it was his Active Rock chops that landed him the gig at WHQG. It was his association with NE Wisconsin heritage rock stalwart 105.7 WAPL.

Looking at their last-played lists, the music appears to be fairly similar among all three stations.

 

[nowradioguy]

Oh, I couldn't agree with you more!