Question: When Did Top 40 playlists become standard across the U.S.?

[adradio]

I remember in the late '70s listening to Casey Kasem's American Top 40 show and noting that there would be songs in the Top Twenty, Nazareth's 'Love Hurts' and Van Halen's 'Dance The Night Away' for example, that were not added to KFRC's playlist. I suppose there were a lot more of these geographic differences in playlists in the '60s and early '70s. When did everything become standardized nationally, such that a Top 40 format in Atlanta was essentially identical to one in the Bay Area?

 

[TheBigA]

When did everything become standardized nationally, such that a Top 40 format in Atlanta was essentially identical to one in the Bay Area?

Technically speaking, it hasn't happened yet. Because the way the chart works, you have individual radio station playlists, and they are then compiled with the playlists of other stations in the same format. They're all mixed together, and you get a national chart. The two major music charts, Mediabase and Billboard, are sticklers for making sure those station playlists stay pure. So they examine them to make sure the stations aren't running a corporate playlist, or running a national format all day long. They have separate categories for those national services, such as After Midnite or the satellite formats.

The other question is how long has such tabulation been done? The first Billboard chart was in 1940. at that time, there were several chart-based popular music shows, some network, and some local. But they based them on the national chart. If you listened to Your Hit Parade, that was a national network show similar to AT40, except it was first.

 

[davideduardo]

I remember in the late '70s listening to Casey Kasem's American Top 40 show and noting that there would be songs in the Top Twenty, Nazareth's 'Love Hurts' and Van Halen's 'Dance The Night Away' for example, that were not added to KFRC's playlist. I suppose there were a lot more of these geographic differences in playlists in the '60s and early '70s. When did everything become standardized nationally, such that a Top 40 format in Atlanta was essentially identical to one in the Bay Area?

Standardization came with communication. As stations got better and better ideas of what other similar statios played, the lists became more and more similar. Billboard, Cash Box and record World were retail oriented, not radio focused. It took Gavin, FMQB, The Hamilton report, R&R and many other radio "tip sheets" to create closer parallels. Then, with online playlist monitoring, we know daily what is working and what isn't in other markets.

 

[TheBigA]

I suppose there were a lot more of these geographic differences in playlists in the '60s and early '70s.

Let me address this separately. Yes there were geographic differences in playlists because there were geographic differences in musical taste. The other thing is there were small record labels in certain geographic areas that didn't have national distribution. Buddy Holly started out on a small Texas record label getting played regionally. His songs started showing up in Billboard charts based on the regional airplay, and national record labels took an interest and signed him. That's also what happened to Elvis. One day he's making records in Memphis. A couple years later RCA comes in and signs him to a national record deal. He appears on Ed Sullivan, and becomes a national star. The major national record labels became more powerful during this time, and smaller local labels simply couldn't compete. So you have the intersection of radio and records. Radio playlists, and the record labels who want to influence them. For the big major labels such as Columbia, RCA, and MCA, there wasn't as much money in regional hits. You wanted to have your record get played on radio stations from Atlanta to San Francisco. The labels hired promotion people to make that happen. It started in the 40s, but became a science by the 70s. The trade magazine Radio & Records was founded in 1973 in the middle of the explosion. The record labels have as much to do with what you hear on the radio as the stations themselves. The labels set the agenda, they pick the singles, and they balance the artists on their roster with the needs of the radio stations. Now you also have streaming, but all of that is worked in with airplay, and its all still done with the input of the record labels.

 

[davideduardo]

The trade magazine Radio & Records was founded in 1973 in the middle of the explosion. The record labels have as much to do with what you hear on the radio as the stations themselves. The labels set the agenda, they pick the singles, and they balance the artists on their roster with the needs of the radio stations. Now you also have streaming, but all of that is worked in with airplay, and its all still done with the input of the record labels.

Remember, Gavin's Report began in the late 50's... The Hamilton Report began around 1970 and FMQB was there by 1972 when I used it for both Hot AC and CHR. R&R just made the "tip sheet" more of a magazine.

 

[TheBigA]

Remember, Gavin's Report began in the late 50's... The Hamilton Report began around 1970 and FMQB was there by 1972 when I used it for both Hot AC and CHR. R&R just made the "tip sheet" more of a magazine.

Absolutely. You also had Record World and Cash Box. Lots of national trade magazines out there, which became resources for the local PDs, and they could see songs they weren't playing that were getting reaction in other parts of the country. All of this had an effect on local playlists. The trades are in the middle, between radio and records. Labels use the data in trades to justify airplay on radio.

 

[michael hagerty]

The question is overly simplified. There really wasn't any one point---it happened, to the extent it has (there are still songs that do better in certain markets) bit by bit.

KFRC was very attuned to SF's musical tastes from its launch in early 1966 until its first PD, Tom Rounds, quit in November of 1967. After that, it was a bit more typical of the country as a whole, but you could find significant differences still (Boz Scaggs, The Pointer Sisters and Tower of Power had high-charting records on KFRC well before they hit those marks elsewhere).

A great way to dive into this is to look at the station charts, side-by-side in the CHR section of Radio and Records over the years. David has a great archive:

https://worldradiohistory.com/RandR_Magazine_Page_Range_Guide.htm

 

[davideduardo]

Absolutely. You also had Record World and Cash Box. Lots of national trade magazines out there, which became resources for the local PDs, and they could see songs they weren't playing that were getting reaction in other parts of the country. All of this had an effect on local playlists. The trades are in the middle, between radio and records. Labels use the data in trades to justify airplay on radio.

However, the music industry trades were a very secondary source for most radio stations because they all were focused back then on retail and one-stops. The charts did not consider airplay, and they did not list station by station adds... just little features such as "what's hot" at selected stations with one or two moving songs.

Of course, a lot of us got Billboard because it did list new releases, and we liked VoxJox with Claude Hall and Rollye James and the rest of the radio section crew. Cash Box really had limited radio appeal, and Record World even less. Both tried, but were not really followed in radio to any great extent. And all three had a lot of the space filled with everything from jukeboxes to pinball machines and accessories record shops sold, like record cases and the like.

Bigger stations that had the budget got them all. But, if you are talking Top 40's in the 60's, it was Gavin. By the 70's we had Hamilton, Rudman, and then R&R. Those publications showed actual station airplay, and we all looked at particular stations were found relative to our own for verification of our own adds or to find ones to reconsider if we had not made an add yet. And we could see when songs were dropping, station by station, or when they were totally stiffing out.

Cash Box https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box-Magazine.htm
Record World https://worldradiohistory.com/Record_World.htm
Gavin (unfortunately, not the 50's and 60's issues https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Gavin-Report-Page-Range-Guide.htm
One Gavin Report from 1964 is at https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Gavin-Report/60/64/Gavin-Report-1964-07-03.pdf
Hamilton, Fred and others; https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Tip_Sheets_Master_Page.htm

 

[Gregg.]

We should also note that some Top 40 stations had the money to do their own research. You needed to compile a local Top 40 list every week, calling the local record stores and getting someone there to each week give you their sales... and that person has to be trustworthy. If they make up numbers based on their own preferences, you won't get accuracy. And if your station doesn't call each record store every week and track down the person with the numbers, your survey won't be accurate either.

I'm sure plenty of General Managers would ask, why are we spending this time and effort (and employing a music director) to produce our own list? Why don't we just clip the national list out of Billboard or Radio & Records magazine each week and use that for our list? Are we really going to get better ratings if we have regional differences in our list? Couldn't we use that money for a better promotion or giveaway? (Or I just keep that cash?)

I guess it was an ego boost for those 50 or so stations chosen by R&R to have their weekly lists published. Nice to see your station's call letters and logo at the top of your list, along with the WABCs and KHJs and KFRCs around the nation, on the pages where R&R would dutifully show each list of the top stations. Not to mention the advantages you might get with record labels, in free records and other swag, or commercials that would advertise their artists' appearances at concerts in your town.

In NYC, while WABC 770 was our big Top 40 station, the NY Daily News' FM station, 101.9 WPIX, also tried to do Top 40. But WPIX never had much of a budget. They'd play whatever was on the national Top 40 list, never doing their own research. I'd hear songs on WPIX that WABC would never play. But since FM stations were at a disadvantage in the 1970s, when few cars had FM and you had to spend more money for a home FM receiver, WPIX was never a factor in the ratings.

 

[davideduardo]

We should also note that some Top 40 stations had the money to do their own research. You needed to compile a local Top 40 list every week, calling the local record stores and getting someone there to each week give you their sales... and that person has to be trustworthy. If they make up numbers based on their own preferences, you won't get accuracy. And if your station doesn't call each record store every week and track down the person with the numbers, your survey won't be accurate either.

I'm sure plenty of General Managers would ask, why are we spending this time and effort (and employing a music director) to produce our own list? Why don't we just clip the national list out of Billboard or Radio & Records magazine each week and use that for our list? Are we really going to get better ratings if we have regional differences in our list? Couldn't we use that money for a better promotion or giveaway? (Or I just keep that cash?)

I guess it was an ego boost for those 50 or so stations chosen by R&R to have their weekly lists published. Nice to see your station's call letters and logo at the top of your list, along with the WABCs and KHJs and KFRCs around the nation, on the pages where R&R would dutifully show each list of the top stations. Not to mention the advantages you might get with record labels, in free records and other swag, or commercials that would advertise their artists' appearances at concerts in your town.

In NYC, while WABC 770 was our big Top 40 station, the NY Daily News' FM station, 101.9 WPIX, also tried to do Top 40. But WPIX never had much of a budget. They'd play whatever was on the national Top 40 list, never doing their own research. I'd hear songs on WPIX that WABC would never play. But since FM stations were at a disadvantage in the 1970s, when few cars had FM and you had to spend more money for a home FM receiver, WPIX was never a factor in the ratings.

Until the mid-70's, the only research stations could do was calling stores or one-stops and getting juke box play counts and tabulating phone requests. That cost nearly nothing to do... someone would call the stores and the PD and MD would evaluate based on what they suspected might be hype. In an important market, a store might be given an extra box of a product to report a song to the local stations. Fan clubs would get members to constantly call and request songs.

But from the later 50's we had Gavin and some other less known "tip sheets" that showed every song station by station with movements duly noted. Those services cost less than a nice client lunch.

We began call-out later in the 70's, and generally had a couple of High School or college kids doing "every 14th number" out of pages from the phone book. Again, very inexpensive if you were in a top 50 market or so. In smaller markets, you'd just look at Gavin or FMQB or Hamilton or R&R and decide on the songs that you should be playing in your market.

Music tests... real AMTs... began around 1972 or 1973 when consumer goods research techniques were adapted to radio music lists. At that point, research became a significant expense. Before that, it was pretty much pocket change.

And if you were a Hamilton or Gavin or R&R reporter, you got stuff to give away, artist visits, even station concerts for newer artists. And some got green-printed paper or white powder in a bag.

 

[TheBigA]

However, the music industry trades were a very secondary source for most radio stations because they all were focused back then on retail and one-stops.

Correct, which is why R&R was the preferable trade for radio It gave you access to local playlists.

Reading Rick Sklar's book, his research at WABC was all based on retail. What none of us knew was that the retail people lied. We didn't discover that until the 90s.

Slightly related, in the last few weeks, Inside Radio has launched a new online publication focusing on country music called Inside Country. It's interesting to watch how they navigate between the existing publications in order to find an audience.

 

[davideduardo]

Correct, which is why R&R was the preferable trade for radio It gave you access to local playlists.

As did Gavin, going back about 15 years before R&R began. It's just that R&R was more of an industry magazine than just a "tip sheet". And others, like the Hamilton Report and FMQB were additional pre-R&R publications.

Reading Rick Sklar's book, his research at WABC was all based on retail. What none of us knew was that the retail people lied. We didn't discover that until the 90s.

I think we all knew that we had to be skeptical of record store reports. Around 1971, a store employee innocently asked us at Mooney's WUNO "do the record companies give you money and stuff too?" alerting us to question any strange bump at just one of the locations we called. We responded by rotating stores, calling each one every two or three weeks and asking about changes, not rankings.

Slightly related, in the last few weeks, Inside Radio has launched a new online publication focusing on country music called Inside Country. It's interesting to watch how they navigate between the existing publications in order to find an audience.

Of course, they go against the great Lon Helton publication which is well entrenched in the country radio community and published by one of the members of the Board of Officers of the CMHOF!

 

[adradio]

The question is overly simplified. There really wasn't any one point---it happened, to the extent it has (there are still songs that do better in certain markets) bit by bit.

KFRC was very attuned to SF's musical tastes from its launch in early 1966 until its first PD, Tom Rounds, quit in November of 1967. After that, it was a bit more typical of the country as a whole, but you could find significant differences still (Boz Scaggs, The Pointer Sisters and Tower of Power had high-charting records on KFRC well before they hit those marks elsewhere).

A great way to dive into this is to look at the station charts, side-by-side in the CHR section of Radio and Records over the years. David has a great archive:

https://worldradiohistory.com/RandR_Magazine_Page_Range_Guide.htm

Boz Scaggs, Tower of Power, Pointer Sisters...yep, I learned in later years (Joel Whitburn's books) that what were huge hits on KFRC were either way down the Billboard Top 100 or not on the Top 100 at all.

 

[adradio]

Until the mid-70's, the only research stations could do was calling stores or one-stops and getting juke box play counts and tabulating phone requests. That cost nearly nothing to do... someone would call the stores and the PD and MD would evaluate based on what they suspected might be hype. In an important market, a store might be given an extra box of a product to report a song to the local stations. Fan clubs would get members to constantly call and request songs.

But from the later 50's we had Gavin and some other less known "tip sheets" that showed every song station by station with movements duly noted. Those services cost less than a nice client lunch.

We began call-out later in the 70's, and generally had a couple of High School or college kids doing "every 14th number" out of pages from the phone book. Again, very inexpensive if you were in a top 50 market or so. In smaller markets, you'd just look at Gavin or FMQB or Hamilton or R&R and decide on the songs that you should be playing in your market.

Music tests... real AMTs... began around 1972 or 1973 when consumer goods research techniques were adapted to radio music lists. At that point, research became a significant expense. Before that, it was pretty much pocket change.

And if you were a Hamilton or Gavin or R&R reporter, you got stuff to give away, artist visits, even station concerts for newer artists. And some got green-printed paper or white powder in a bag.

From the responses I'm assuming that it was around late '70s, early '80s when Top 40 essentially became homogenized across the U.S. Other rock formats, AAA, Alternative, always had regionalization and in some cases still have some today. Top 40, though, feels like it was the one format that starting in the mid '80s has been pretty much the same in every market.

 

[TheBigA]

Boz Scaggs, Tower of Power, Pointer Sisters...yep, I learned in later years (Joel Whitburn's books) that what were huge hits on KFRC were either way down the Billboard Top 100 or not on the Top 100 at all.

Getting back to your original question about when music became more national, those three artist names reminded me of someone from San Francisco: Thom O'Hair. Back in the 70s, Thom worked with Tom Donohue at KMPX and later KSAN. He played those three artists when they were new because they were from San Francisco. Later, he moved to New York City to program WQIV, where he continued to play those San Francisco musicians and many more. Prior to Thom coming to New York, Tower of Power didn't receive widespread airplay on radio there. But he knew them from his home town. And there was a lot of similar movement of radio people at that time. And when those radio people moved, their brought their local music knowledge with them. So music that was popular in Texas or somewhere else moved with the radio people as they moved around the country. Touring became a bigger business in the 70s, and these artists realized they could make more money taking their music outside their home area. Festivals, starting with Monterey and Woodstock, led to even more music festivals where young people heard musicians that might not get airplay where they lived. The success of those festivals, attended by local radio people, led to new music being played on the radio. So it was a process, a slow process originally, as new technologies in touring, in communication, and in media movement led to the growth of music from what was once isolated local areas to a more national market.

 

[michael hagerty]

Boz Scaggs, Tower of Power, Pointer Sisters...yep, I learned in later years (Joel Whitburn's books) that what were huge hits on KFRC were either way down the Billboard Top 100 or not on the Top 100 at all.

Not just KFRC. Ray Randolph did a great job on his KHJ tribute site of creating a list of all the songs on the KHJ Boss 30 from mid-1965 (the first list) to mid-1973 (when Bill Drake, Robert W. Morgan and the Real Don Steele left)---comparing their peak at KHJ with the peak in Billboard:

https://thebig93.com/khj_song_index.html

What that list can't convey is how early KHJ was on records during those years and how quickly they got on and off of them. Frequently, a song would be in its last week or already gone from the KHJ list as it entered Billboard's Top 10.

 

[Groove1670]

Today, when you have a hundred stations from one company reporting, it is easier to drive a record up the charts. I won't go into streaming, views, etc. I think Gavin had the criteria that the station had to produce a certain amount of hours live or generate a local playlist. We were a reporting station, but was too long ago to remember.

Most stations did follow the National charts, but with local sales, callout and research, stations had the freedom to break a small percentage of records on a local/regional level. Yes, you can get similar online stats now, but it was also nice to talk directly to you your local Peaches, Specs stores (South Florida record stores).

In South Florida we broke many Freestyle records (Stevie B., Expose) many imports (Freeez, Nolan Thomas), Electronic Dance (Planet Patrol), and other groups that charted but didnt reach major National pop chart success (SOS Band, Shalamar).

Those records did well is San Diego, Tuscon, New York and Miami, but didn't make noise in Seattle or Topeka (I won't get into demographics). The same could be said for Nirvana records getting zero traction in SFLA.

Today, all singles in the the top 20 that are on corporate station playlists. I guess in the corporate "one playlists fits all" that doesn't matter. I think that stations can use that to their advantage, also with incorporating localism (community outreach).

With the lastest cuts (reduction in force) this week mostly talent and programming, that brings the goal of a single playlist for each format complete. It is no longer about the programming and talent, it is about the ROI and cost reductions. In this pandemic world, it makes sense.

 

[davideduardo]

Today, when you have a hundred stations from one company reporting, it is easier to drive a record up the charts. I won't go into streaming, views, etc. I think Gavin had the criteria that the station had to produce a certain amount of hours live or generate a local playlist. We were a reporting station, but was too long ago to remember.

Most stations did follow the National charts, but with local sales, callout and research, stations had the freedom to break a small percentage of records on a local/regional level. Yes, you can get similar online stats now, but it was also nice to talk directly to you your local Peaches, Specs stores (South Florida record stores).

In South Florida we broke many Freestyle records (Stevie B., Expose) many imports (Freeez, Nolan Thomas), Electronic Dance (Planet Patrol), and other groups that charted but didnt reach major National pop chart success (SOS Band, Shalamar).

Those records did well is San Diego, Tuscon, New York and Miami, but didn't make noise in Seattle or Topeka (I won't get into demographics). The same could be said for Nirvana records getting zero traction in SFLA.

Today, all singles in the the top 20 that are on corporate station playlists. I guess in the corporate "one playlists fits all" that doesn't matter. I think that stations can use that to their advantage, also with incorporating localism (community outreach).

With the lastest cuts (reduction in force) this week mostly talent and programming, that brings the goal of a single playlist for each format complete. It is no longer about the programming and talent, it is about the ROI and cost reductions. In this pandemic world, it makes sense.

Nowhere I have been are the "national charts" the key programming element. In Top 40, since the beginning of the Gavin Report in the late 50's we have looked at stations we track first. Even if our station is in a major market, we know the other stations in our area and nationally that tend to break the songs we would consider for play. We'd also watch stations we trusted (and which were highly rated) to see what they added, moved up or down, or dropped.

There were lots of factors that determined what a station would add, but the national Billboard charts were not one of them... as I said, plenty of stations did not even get Billboard as it was sales driven, not listener driven.

If you look at a couple of different iHeart CHR stations, you will find pretty significant differences in playlist and rotation between them. The major stations are creating local lists, even if they take talent from another location.

Today's networks are really not networks at all. They are Lego set, where a station assembles talent bits, local service elements, spots, and a talent who adds personality. The music can be very different from station to station because we have systems now that can assemble material from all over the planet into a local radio station.

Nobody wants to break too many uncertain songs... so we watch other markets, and each of us has a group of stations we watch in case we miss or are uncertain about a song.

However, groups that impose one playlist on very different markets will fail. Look how that worked for Cumulus!

 

[Groove1670]

Nowhere I have been are the "national charts" the key programming element. In Top 40, since the beginning of the Gavin Report in the late 50's we have looked at stations we track first. Even if our station is in a major market, we know the other stations in our area and nationally that tend to break the songs we would consider for play. We'd also watch stations we trusted (and which were highly rated) to see what they added, moved up or down, or dropped.

Yes we used Y-100, WOVV, Hot 97 and other stations as an indicator. We were all Churban stations.

There were lots of factors that determined what a station would add, but the national Billboard charts were not one of them... as I said, plenty of stations did not even get Billboard as it was sales driven, not listener driven.

We never used Billboard - Couldn't afford it

If you look at a couple of different iHeart CHR stations, you will find pretty significant differences in playlist and rotation between them. The major stations are creating local lists, even if they take talent from another location.

We have two Iheart CHR's and three AC stations that duplicate the playlists in certain dayparts during my weekly commute, but they are smaller markets one in the top 100, two outside the top 100. That probably doen't apply to their major market stations.

Today's networks are really not networks at all. They are Lego set, where a station assembles talent bits, local service elements, spots, and a talent who adds personality. The music can be very different from station to station because we have systems now that can assemble material from all over the planet into a local radio station.

Nobody wants to break too many uncertain songs... so we watch other markets, and each of us has a group of stations we watch in case we miss or are uncertain about a song.

I agree, nothing has really changed there.

However, groups that impose one playlist on very different markets will fail. Look how that worked for Cumulus!

Yes. Cumulus stations now does a great job with playlists targeted to their markets. At least they do in Mobile AL. The rest of my reply's are above. I didn't post properly.

 

[TheBigA]

Today, when you have a hundred stations from one company reporting, it is easier to drive a record up the charts.

Except keep in mind the charts have rules about that. And even when a company does a targeted (paid) campaign, it still isn't enough to overwhelm the rest of the chart. The people who run the charts (like the people who run elections) are very concerned about giving the impression that the system is flawed or filled with fraud.