Stopset length/frequency idea

[Route 222]

I've been in the radio biz for about 20 years. I don't consider myself a REAL pro like many of you here, but I think I know a few things about radio. One thing that has always bothered me (more now than ever with radio in some areas struggling to attract people to listen) are the length of commercial stopsets. There is one medium-market station near me that regularly plays 8 minutes of commercials. I timed it and I drove clear from one small town to another small town 7 miles away and the commercials were still playing 8 minutes later. I don't understand why any advertiser would want to be 4, 5, or 6 minutes into a commercial break let alone 7 minutes! Who in their right mind especially with the radio right at their fingertips in a car would sit through that? Only captive audiences at stores, factories, etc. playing the radio station would put up with that.

My crazy idea (and feel free to tell me if I'm crazy or if this has been tried before and failed): Why not stations that play commercials after say every two or so songs, but that each break is no more than say 30 or 60 seconds. Maybe sell mainly 15 to 30 second spots and play them every couple of songs. To help curtail the conditioning people have to flip the switch every time a commercial comes on in the car, run a liner into every break like: "Like the music? We'll be back to it faster than any other radio station. We play no more than 30/60/whatever seconds of commercials every time we break! See you in under a minute!"

Thoughts?

 

[TheBigA]

We'll be back to it faster than any other radio station. We play no more than 30/60/whatever seconds of commercials every time we break! See you in under a minute!"

First of all, I'd never tell the audience "We'll be back." Where did you go? You're still there. The station didn't go away. You're just playing a few commercials, not disappearing from the dial completely. It's all part of station programming. Hopefully, the listeners will stick around. Hopefully they won't leave. They MIGHT if you tell them what they'll hear after the commercials. Why not tell them what they'll hear next? Give them a reason.

Second, a commercial break is an interruption in program flow. How many times do you want to interrupt the flow? The research that has been done by multiple consulting companies is that the more times you break, the more times you lose audience. It's not a function of stopset length, but rather frequency. This has been documented in PPM tests, where the researchers lined up the times of the breaks with the ratings. They could see how the audience responded, and tracked it over the day.

I don't know if you're in a PPM or diary market, but it makes a difference. There's a reason why stations do this. It's not a hobby. The stations know WHEN to run their breaks, and for HOW LONG based on real life experience watching what listeners do. They also know how many spots they need to run an hour to meet their expenses and pay their staff, which includes you. If you want them to run fewer spots, are you willing to take a commensurate cut in pay?

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Short, frequent breaks feel like more advertising than the 7 minute break set, because the listener recognizes each entry into commercials as a separate event.

 

[TheBigA]

I should add, we're talking about music programming here. News, talk, and sports stations often run more frequent breaks, because the commercials blend in with the spoken content. They stand out more in music programming.

There was a time when music stations ran spots between every song. This was in the 60s on the big Top 40 AM radio stations. And yes, the breaks were shorter. But as popular music moved to FM, the presentation changed, and songs were grouped together in segues. As recently as the 90s, FM stations would run 3 or 4 breaks an hour. But about ten years ago, the research showed a preference for 2 breaks an hour, and you'll find most major market stations will aim for two breaks an hour. But it's also a function of format. Classic Hits audiences are used to more frequent breaks. Alternative rock and AC prefers fewer breaks.

 

[CTListener]

I don't know if you're in a PPM or diary market, but it makes a difference. There's a reason why stations do this. It's not a hobby. The stations know WHEN to run their breaks

That would generally be at the same time the competition is running theirs, right? I usually put up with long stopsets, but when I do check my second- and third-choice stations, they're running their 7-minute commercial breaks as well, which sends me back to my first choice, or to SiriusXM, from which I usually don't return during that particular trip. But as we all know, SXM listening is a nonfactor when talking about a specific market's overall ratings picture, so I assume commercial broadcasters just ignore listener loss to pay radio, confident that it will never be any sort of threat to the status quo, especially since they know they will never lose their local advertising accounts to SiriusXM, which is prohibited from originating local programming on its many local repeaters.

 

[TheBigA]

That would generally be at the same time the competition is running theirs, right?

Maybe. It depends. Some PDs schedule their breaks to counter their competition. Plus it depends on what format your 2nd choice station is.

The thing about Sirius is while they have no commercials, they're more likely to play a dud song. So which do you prefer?

 

[CTListener]

Maybe. It depends. Some PDs schedule their breaks to counter their competition. Plus it depends on what format your 2nd choice station is.

The thing about Sirius is while they have no commercials, they're more likely to play a dud song. So which do you prefer?

For classic rock, unless I'm in an adventurous mood, I find few differences between the playlists of the two SXM classic rock "hit tracks only" channels and those of WPLR, WHCN and WAQY, other than that more '60s and '70s tracks are still in rotation at SXM, which is not a negative to someone in my demographic. The songs played were not "duds" at classic rock FM radio before they aged out. My No. 3 choice, besides one of the other classic rock stations, is usually sports talk, and that station is ALWAYS in commercial break at the times I usually go looking for something else. No. 4? Country, same deal. It's like collusion -- about 10 minutes before the top of the hour Hartford radio is one huge ad break.

 

[TheBigA]

For classic rock, unless I'm in an adventurous mood, I find few differences

I'm primarily interested in their currents-based channels, and they add a lot of songs I'd call duds.

It's like collusion -- about 10 minutes before the top of the hour Hartford radio is one huge ad break.

The other big one is 20 past the hour. And yes, the sports talk station likely has breaks every ten minutes.

 

[landtuna]

I may be an exception but if I am listening to a station known for long commercial breaks I will hit the pre-set the moment a commercial begins - because I know the next 5-6-7-8 minutes will be a waste. No decision to be made. No matter what's coming up next. It matters not.

But actually, as technology has given me the opportunity to create my own playlist that next pre-set is likely to be my own device and radio loses a listener practically forever.

By taking away the entertaining DJ and injecting significantly longer stopsets the industry has driven me away from music radio almost entirely.

Matter of fact, as the years go by most of my auto trips don't have the radio playing at all. I just never turn it on.

 

[TheBigA]

By taking away the entertaining DJ and injecting significantly longer stopsets the industry has driven me away from music radio almost entirely.

You could also say that most of the music itself has driven you away. A commercial-free rap station with entertaining DJs would have the same effect.

 

[oldies76]

The thing about Sirius is while they have no commercials, they're more likely to play a dud song. So which do you prefer?

The "dud" song. Remember, not everybody thinks the same, that "dud" maybe someone else's favorite.

And yes, I'll take music over a long stop set any day of the week.

 

[oldies76]

I may be an exception but if I am listening to a station known for long commercial breaks I will hit the pre-set the moment a commercial begins - because I know the next 5-6-7-8 minutes will be a waste.

Same here. I turn the radio to hear music, not advertising for products I do not need or would waste my money purchasing. Home playlists are the way to go.

 

[TexasTom]

I'd say that radio stations have done a good job of training the audience to change stations as soon as they hear anything to indicate that commercials are starting -- because we now know that the breaks will run six to eight minutes.

When I was in high school and college, it was fairly common for FM radio stations (at least in Western Washington) to run four two minute breaks per hour. I knew that the music would be back soon enough so I didn't bother to change the channel on the stations that followed that practice (KNBQ Q97 in Tacoma, KNWR FM 104 in Bellingham, and KUBE 93 in Seattle).

I've sometimes wondered about the idea of using really short breaks that are more frequent -- either the old two minute breaks every quarter hour pattern or even doing a one minute break every second song (which would give you seven breaks in an hour). The downside for stations is that gives them only seven or eight minutes of advertising time per hour, and while that was once pretty common it is now far less than the typical commercial load. For advertisers, the upside would be a higher likelihood that your commercial is actually heard by someone. My suspicion, however, is that radio stations have now so thoroughly trained listeners to punch channels at the beginning of a break that few listeners would bother to hang around long enough to find that it really is back to the music in a minute or two.

 

[michael hagerty]

I've been in the radio biz for about 20 years. I don't consider myself a REAL pro like many of you here, but I think I know a few things about radio. One thing that has always bothered me (more now than ever with radio in some areas struggling to attract people to listen) are the length of commercial stopsets. There is one medium-market station near me that regularly plays 8 minutes of commercials. I timed it and I drove clear from one small town to another small town 7 miles away and the commercials were still playing 8 minutes later. I don't understand why any advertiser would want to be 4, 5, or 6 minutes into a commercial break let alone 7 minutes! Who in their right mind especially with the radio right at their fingertips in a car would sit through that? Only captive audiences at stores, factories, etc. playing the radio station would put up with that.

My crazy idea (and feel free to tell me if I'm crazy or if this has been tried before and failed): Why not stations that play commercials after say every two or so songs, but that each break is no more than say 30 or 60 seconds. Maybe sell mainly 15 to 30 second spots and play them every couple of songs. To help curtail the conditioning people have to flip the switch every time a commercial comes on in the car, run a liner into every break like: "Like the music? We'll be back to it faster than any other radio station. We play no more than 30/60/whatever seconds of commercials every time we break! See you in under a minute!"

Thoughts?

What you're describing is what Bill Drake instituted at KHJ in Los Angeles in 1965 (followed by the rest of the RKO chain). There was a 14-minute commercial limit per hour, and no stopset could be longer than 70 seconds nor have more than three elements. So that 70 seconds could be a :60 and a :10 or two :30s and a :10, but it could not be a :30 and four :10s.

That's great for getting back into music fast, but it also requires you to break for commercials 12 times in an hour to get 14 minutes of spots on the air in 70-second bites.

By the early 70s, FM competitors were coming on the air with only eight minutes an hour, which could be done in four two-minute sets. So Drake went to two-minute stopsets as well---but he still had to do seven of them to stay at 14 minutes an hour. Is that better than 12 breaks? Yes. But worse than four.

As others have pointed out in this thread, today's listeners care more about the number of interruptions than they do how long those interruptions last. Stations are doing what works.

 

[TheBigA]

For advertisers, the upside would be a higher likelihood that your commercial is actually heard by someone.

They don't just buy one commercial. The way commercials are sold today, the placement is varied in such a way that they have a good chance of being heard. But we also offer the option of being the first spot in a cluster for a premium price. Our research says most listeners stay through the entire break. It's a function of if its easy. If you're in your car, and you just have to hit a button, you're more likely to do it than if you're at work and the radio isn't within reach.

 

[TheBigA]

Remember, not everybody thinks the same, that "dud" maybe someone else's favorite.

We have research on the odds that certain songs will alienate a larger number of people than others. That costs money. You can see it in practice at the Wow Factor in Phoenix, where the number of dud songs have cost the station almost half of its previous audience in just 4 months. That will cause their spots rate to go down, and they will need to run more commercials to make the same amount of money.

 

[davideduardo]

What you're describing is what Bill Drake instituted at KHJ in Los Angeles in 1965 (followed by the rest of the RKO chain). There was a 14-minute commercial limit per hour, and no stopset could be longer than 70 seconds nor have more than three elements. So that 70 seconds could be a :60 and a :10 or two :30s and a :10, but it could not be a :30 and four :10s.

That's great for getting back into music fast, but it also requires you to break for commercials 12 times in an hour to get 14 minutes of spots on the air in 70-second bites.

By the early 70s, FM competitors were coming on the air with only eight minutes an hour, which could be done in four two-minute sets. So Drake went to two-minute stopsets as well---but he still had to do seven of them to stay at 14 minutes an hour. Is that better than 12 breaks? Yes. But worse than four.

As others have pointed out in this thread, today's listeners care more about the number of interruptions than they do how long those interruptions last. Stations are doing what works.

Even before Drake hit LA... my first Top 40 went on the air in 1964, and we did one song, one 30", one song, one 30" every hour of the day. We never double-spotted, and did not sell liners or features. Back then the tunes were about 2'30" long, so we ran about 9 1/2 minutes to 10 minutes of spots an hour.

The norm in the market before we went on the air was 25 to 30 minutes of commercials per hour.

 

[davideduardo]

The "dud" song. Remember, not everybody thinks the same, that "dud" maybe someone else's favorite.

As BigA says, stations do research and find consensus songs where "everyone" likes them to some degree and where many love them. Songs with signficant negatives are just not played.

 

[Miss Tuned]

First of all, I'd never tell the audience "We'll be back." Where did you go? You're still there. The station didn't go away. You're just playing a few commercials, not disappearing from the dial completely. It's all part of station programming. Hopefully, the listeners will stick around. Hopefully they won't leave. They MIGHT if you tell them what they'll hear after the commercials. Why not tell them what they'll hear next? Give them a reason.

Second, a commercial break is an interruption in program flow. How many times do you want to interrupt the flow? The research that has been done by multiple consulting companies is that the more times you break, the more times you lose audience. It's not a function of stopset length, but rather frequency. This has been documented in PPM tests, where the researchers lined up the times of the breaks with the ratings. They could see how the audience responded, and tracked it over the day.

I don't know if you're in a PPM or diary market, but it makes a difference. There's a reason why stations do this. It's not a hobby. The stations know WHEN to run their breaks, and for HOW LONG based on real life experience watching what listeners do. They also know how many spots they need to run an hour to meet their expenses and pay their staff, which includes you. If you want them to run fewer spots, are you willing to take a commensurate cut in pay?

This. Capital Radio London tried the "two ads per break, breaks every two songs" thing in the mid-2000s when they were flagging in the ratings (having traditionally been #1) and it just ruined the flow of the station. Yes, you're never more than 60 seconds from music, but you're also never more than two songs away from another ad. It cut right into the time the presenters had available to talk and curtailed the personality jocks who had previously been a station selling point. It flopped in the ratings and they went back to a standard clock after a few months.

It did also come with a music shift from CHR to a weird urban/AC/CHR hybrid which didn't help their numbers, but the ad thing was a huge contributory factor. These days, they're back to straight-up CHR and hover around the top of the London ratings.

 

[michael hagerty]

Even before Drake hit LA... my first Top 40 went on the air in 1964, and we did one song, one 30", one song, one 30" every hour of the day. We never double-spotted, and did not sell liners or features. Back then the tunes were about 2'30" long, so we ran about 9 1/2 minutes to 10 minutes of spots an hour.

The norm in the market before we went on the air was 25 to 30 minutes of commercials per hour.

Wow.

And yes, a song, a spot, a song, a spot----that was how it was done pre-Drake. It's very rare, other than on the early beautiful music stations, to find a pre-Drake aircheck with two songs segued. Even on stations that didn't sell out, they were formatted to put something---a feature, a PSA, something---in between records.

Drake was being a revolutionary---clustering spots so that his stopset was only :10 second longer than the competition's (assuming they were playing a :60 instead of a :30), but, because the per-hour limit was four minutes lighter, enabling him to do two (or sometimes three) songs back-to-back---thus justifying the "more music" positioning.