WHTT ADDS 90s

[Majic rockstar]

Don’t know if anyone else noticed this but they just started adding in early 90s titles. Something most other classic hit stations have already been doing.

 

[TheBigA]

They may be one of the last stations to start adding 90s songs. The Entercom classic hits stations have been doing this for at least a year or two. This is in response to aging demos. As people get older, the station adds music that appeals to people in the demo. So this will start to have an effect on the 6+ numbers. But the station doesn't care about the 6+ numbers.

 

[tbolt909]

1990 was 31 years ago. Is the average 30 Something listening to 90s music? Radio is playing a losing game with this nonsensical approach. How does adding 90s music get younger demos?

A 35-45 year old might be listening to any number of genres from 1966 to the present. The average Classic Rock/Hits listener probably still thinks Nirvana is a "NEW" band...

 

[ckg279]

To which I say: Big deal. CFLZ(101.1 More FM)and Toronto's CHBM(Boom 97.3)have had 90s music as part of their playlist since the get-go. And, as I continue to maintain, Boom(and to a lesser extent More FM)do a better job of presenting the format than WHTT does.

 

[TheBigA]

How does adding 90s music get younger demos?

It doesn't necessarily "get younger demos," but it keeps the target where it is. So certain people age out of the audience. Net result may be an overall loss if you look at 6+ numbers, because they include the over 55s, who will likely find other options.

 

[davideduardo]

1990 was 31 years ago. Is the average 30 Something listening to 90s music? Radio is playing a losing game with this nonsensical approach. How does adding 90s music get younger demos?

The fact is that many stations have been playing 90's music since the 90's. That means that a person who enters into the style target of a station when young is going to hear music that may be 10 to 20 years old.

So a 31 year old today was listening at age 15 and hearing, quite possibly, some music as old as or older than they were at the time of their youth. So it's not uncommon in a music test to find the youngest listeners of an 21-44 targeted station who like music as much as a decade older than they are.

Ever since the mid-60's, current music stations have been playing gold or oldies or flashbacks or dusties or whatever. Those songs became part of the listener's "library" and the issue today is whether they remain relevant; many, many are.

I have seen this over and over in music test in many different different formats and, even, in many different countries. There are no exceptions.

 

[tbolt909]

It doesn't necessarily "get younger demos," but it keeps the target where it is. So certain people age out of the audience. Net result may be an overall loss if you look at 6+ numbers, because they include the over 55s, who will likely find other options.

The problem is that Radio is far less relevant to the under 40 crowd. They aren't seeking a Classic Rock/Hits format that plays a few 90s titles. JACK was already doing this anyway and it's now been replaced with a "Rock Hits" version.

As for "other options", the 25-45 year old demos are already using them instead of Radio...

 

[TheBigA]

The problem is that Radio is far less relevant to the under 40 crowd.

You say that as though it's based on some facts somewhere.

Here are the facts: Where classic hits stations add 90s songs, the average age stays in the sweet spot of 25 to 54. We see it at WCBS in NYC, we see it at WROR in Boston, we see it at KOOL in Phoenix, and we see it at KRTH in LA. KRTH not only does well 25 to 54, but they are #3 in 18 to 34. I believe that group is under 40.

In addition, they are also among the most listened to stations in those markets.

 

[Rusty Bridges]

As a few previous posters have noted, a successful Classic Hits station has to incorporate the 90s in its music base in order to maintain relevance in the 40-54 demo. Think about it. If a person was 13 in 90, he/she will be 44 this year. A lot of programmers consider the 90s to be a perilous era ("doesn't test well") because of the diverse music styles, arguably more erratic than the 70s and 80s. Still, every consultant or group PD has a 100 song "safe list" to work with. That having been acknowledged, one has to wonder what the shelf life is for "classic" stations. Because of technology (streaming, "Alexa play," satellite, owned music), listeners may be more inclined to "age out" of conventional OTA radio listening.

 

[TheBigA]

Because of technology (streaming, "Alexa play," satellite, owned music), listeners may be more inclined to "age out" of conventional OTA radio listening.

Push vs. pull. It takes a certain amount of effort to say "Alexa play..." With radio, you turn it on, and they do all the work.

 

[tbolt909]

You say that as though it's based on some facts somewhere.

Here are the facts: Where classic hits stations add 90s songs, the average age stays in the sweet spot of 25 to 54. We see it at WCBS in NYC, we see it at WROR in Boston, we see it at KOOL in Phoenix, and we see it at KRTH in LA. KRTH not only does well 25 to 54, but they are #3 in 18 to 34. I believe that group is under 40.

There is plenty of evidence that Radio is not relevant to people under 40. That doesn't mean no one is listening.

In a market like Buffalo, it's unlikely that any younger demos will discover WHTT just because they have added some 90s music. There is a lot of great music from the 90s that is not on Radio playlists...

 

[TVEngineerArk]

There is a lot of great music from the 90s that is not on Radio playlists...

The same could be said for some of the music from the 80's as well. And other formats too. Country radio is particularly devoid of 80's and 90's hits which were the songs that caused that format to get as huge as it got back then.

 

[TheBigA]

There is plenty of evidence that Radio is not relevant to people under 40. That doesn't mean no one is listening.

You state it as though it means no one is listening. In fact they are, and in very comparable numbers to 30 years ago.

 

[Rusty Bridges]

Push vs. pull. It takes a certain amount of effort to say "Alexa play..." With radio, you turn it on, and they do all the work.

Yeah, "Alexa play..." is such a heavy lift.

 

[TheBigA]

Yeah, "Alexa play..." is such a heavy lift.

For some, obviously it is. Otherwise, why would people continue to listen to these stations?

I've been told about the coming death of radio my whole life. Somehow I've stayed employed.

 

[Kevin]

1990 was 31 years ago. Is the average 30 Something listening to 90s music? Radio is playing a losing game with this nonsensical approach. How does adding 90s music get younger demos?

A 35-45 year old might be listening to any number of genres from 1966 to the present. The average Classic Rock/Hits listener probably still thinks Nirvana is a "NEW" band...

The average 30 something is not listening to traditional radio. Most 30 something’s are streaming. Do your homework and see who still listens to traditional radio, mostly the 40 + age group ( and that’s shrinking). Radio is losing the younger demographic and that will continue to get worse. I myself have for the most part given up on traditional radio and moved to streaming because my demographic is underserved by traditional radio and I’m 65 years old. In Detroit there is zero Oldies formatted stations on FM and one garbage Oldies station on AM from Windsor as far as HD radio the two Oldies stations that we have on that platform play the same 100 titles. Corporate radio is killing traditional radio with tight playlists and limited formats forcing the listeners to streaming because the radio corporations know that is what the future of radio will be.

 

[TheBigA]

Corporate radio is killing traditional radio with tight playlists and limited formats forcing the listeners to streaming because the radio corporations know that is what the future of radio will be

Young audiences aren't streaming unknown songs by unknown bands. For the most part, they're streaming the exact same songs being played on the radio. This is not a "corporate radio" thing. If loosening up playlists and expanding formats would get people to throw away their phones and computers, it would happen. But people stream because streaming has replaced buying CDs. There are a bunch of radio stations on AM & FM with large playlists and fringe formats, but they have very small audiences.

We already went through this conversation. Someone tried to say that FM radio was a week behind on the Olivia Rodrigo song. I showed him how he was wrong.

 

[davideduardo]

The average 30 something is not listening to traditional radio. Most 30 something’s are streaming.

I looked at a sample of Top 10 markets, and 18-34 shows just a couple of percentage fewer total persons using radio weekly than 35-54. And the 35-54 figure is just 4% to 5% less than it was 12 years ago when the current PPM measurement system started in the top 48 of the top 50 markets.

Do your homework and see who still listens to traditional radio, mostly the 40 + age group ( and that’s shrinking). Radio is losing the younger demographic and that will continue to get worse.

As BigA says, streaming replaced buying records, tapes and CDs.

I myself have for the most part given up on traditional radio and moved to streaming because my demographic is underserved by traditional radio and I’m 65 years old.

You are way out of the target of the advertisers who keep commercial radio going. Stations, for the most part (and there are a few exceptions) can't program for you as there are few potential clients.

In Detroit there is zero Oldies formatted stations on FM and one garbage Oldies station on AM from Windsor as far as HD radio the two Oldies stations that we have on that platform play the same 100 titles. Corporate radio is killing traditional radio with tight playlists and limited formats forcing the listeners to streaming because the radio corporations know that is what the future of radio will be.

I've never won a competitive battle by playing more songs than the other station. I did a rock station in a market a bit bigger than New York City a few yeas back; we were getting shares in the low 20's in a 300 station market. A competitor came after us, using a library that was three times as large. That, of course, meant that 2 out of every 3 songs was one that failed in our music testing and research. They got as "high" as a 1.8 and we lost nothing. They lasted about a year and after seeing 12 books of failure, they tried another format.

And most of us don't care if a listener asks Alexa for us or uses a radio or a smartphone. We are not in the transmitter and antenna business.

 

[TheBigA]

As BigA says, streaming replaced buying records, tapes and CDs.

When we're talking about artists of the 50s and 60s that typically might get played on Oldies radio, they don't get much from traditional radio airplay. Their fans don't buy their records, most don't do shows anymore, and the only income they might have will come from streaming royalties that were meant to compensate them in place of traditional record sales. So if you care about supporting the artists and musicians from that era, most of whom don't have fat retirement plans, the right way to do it is subscribe to a music service that pays them every time one of their songs is played. I'm all in favor of that.

 

[tbolt909]

Looking at the WHTT playlist; it is essentially what JACK was. Pop/Rock Hits from mainly the 70s - 90s. There are still some 60s titles in the list posted online.

Radio just recycles the same playlists and changes the packaging. Oldies, Classic Rock/Hits, JACK, BOB, MIX, and on & on.
The "NEW" WBUF (Former JACK) is just another rehash of the same stuff...