Entercom's alternative experiment not a success?

[TheBigA]

Gaslighting at it's finest.

That's a misrepresentation of what gaslighting means.

The station isn't saying they play those songs. An independent organization that monitors the station 24/7 says they play those songs. The labels accept that information as fact. I am sharing that information with you. But you are not the intended audience of that information.

 

[CTListener]

That's a misrepresentation of what gaslighting means.

The station isn't saying they play those songs. An independent organization that monitors the station 24/7 says they play those songs. The labels accept that information as fact. I am sharing that information with you. But you are not the intended audience of that information.

So someone geekily monitoring a given station's playlist by actually listening to the station, over the air, only a few miles from the transmitter, could go a full week without hearing the song, but some independent organization with no physical presence in the market can tell the labels that, sure, that station is playing that song, and the labels take that as gospel? Isn't that fraud? Or could the station only be playing the song between 2 and 5 a.m., effectively burying it, but the labels still take that as evidence that the song has been added and that, somehow, it doesn't matter if practically nobody ever hears it?

 

[TheBigA]

So someone geekily monitoring a given station's playlist by actually listening to the station, over the air, only a few miles from the transmitter, could go a full week without hearing the song, but some independent organization with no physical presence in the market can tell the labels that, sure, that station is playing that song, and the labels take that as gospel? Isn't that fraud?

No. Because every song is encoded, and the monitor looks for the code. It's more accurate and more scientific than the person who listens to the station. Is the person who listens to the station awake 24/7? No. The record labels know and understand the methodology, and that's why they accept it. Plus they can check Mediabase numbers against BDS numbers for accuracy and if they see a difference, they can call the PD and demand an explanation. So there are TWO competing companies doing this electronic monitoring of radio stations.

 

[davideduardo]

So someone geekily monitoring a given station's playlist by actually listening to the station, over the air, only a few miles from the transmitter, could go a full week without hearing the song, but some independent organization with no physical presence in the market can tell the labels that, sure, that station is playing that song, and the labels take that as gospel?

The BDS and MediaBase system has what is essentially a bank of fixed frequency radios in a rack somewhere that capture the audio, which is then analyzed to detect each song based on its unique fingerprint and registered in their database by artist, title, date, and time.

Subscribers can actually get logs of the songs played. We can look at individual hours and reconstruct a station's clock by looking at frequency of play to determine categories and then placing the categories in the hour to determine the way a station plays its library.

We also get historical data of plays by week for the last specified number of weeks. We can look at only one daypart, or just 6 AM to 7 PM, among many choices. And we can create all kinds of custom dayparts. We can compare a market's play of a song with streaming plays. And so on.

Isn't that fraud? Or could the station only be playing the song between 2 and 5 a.m., effectively burying it, but the labels still take that as evidence that the song has been added and that, somehow, it doesn't matter if practically nobody ever hears it?

BDS and MediaBase allow subscribers to look at the exact times songs were played on every station. And, as I said, you can specify dayparts, day ranges and all kinds of other things in the reports.

 

[davideduardo]

No. Because every song is encoded, and the monitor looks for the code.

Expanding: BDS and MediaBase both have about every song a station might ever play encoded in their computer. Every song has a fingerprint, even for various remixes. So when the system "hears" audio, it looks for matching patterns and, after eliminating every other possibility in their library of "fingerprints" the system credits the play.

In the earlier years of electronic monitoring... 15 to 20 years ago... some songs would not be in the library of those services and some might get miss-identified. Users reported those errors, and the two services perfected the detection algorithms and, today, there are practically no errors at all.

They even have a procedure involving consecutive seconds so that songs used in commercials and station promos won't be credited.

 

[TheBigA]

Or could the station only be playing the song between 2 and 5 a.m., effectively burying it, but the labels still take that as evidence that the song has been added and that, somehow, it doesn't matter if practically nobody ever hears it?

Even if it airs at 3AM, a spin counts towards its location in the airplay chart. That's what the label is trying to affect. Typically a station won't put a new song in its highest rated daypart until it gets some research on the song. It won't get research until there are some spins. So it's a long process. It could take months between adding a song and when it moves into heavy rotation. It may get dropped before then because of bad research or a drop in other indicators. Every week, a rep from the label should be calling the station to promote increasing spins and improving the times played. They might bring up things like streaming numbers or concert attendance in the market. All of this is completely unknown by listeners, but it's where the rubber meets the road.

The other aspect here is that these radio stations are also streaming, and when those songs stream, they are due royalties from the radio company. So every spin means revenue for the label, artist, and songwriter.

 

[tall_guy1]

The BDS and MediaBase system has what is essentially a bank of fixed frequency radios in a rack somewhere that capture the audio, which is then analyzed to detect each song based on its unique fingerprint and registered in their database by artist, title, date, and time.

Subscribers can actually get logs of the songs played. We can look at individual hours and reconstruct a station's clock by looking at frequency of play to determine categories and then placing the categories in the hour to determine the way a station plays its library.

We also get historical data of plays by week for the last specified number of weeks. We can look at only one daypart, or just 6 AM to 7 PM, among many choices. And we can create all kinds of custom dayparts. We can compare a market's play of a song with streaming plays. And so on.

BDS and MediaBase allow subscribers to look at the exact times songs were played on every station. And, as I said, you can specify dayparts, day ranges and all kinds of other things in the reports.

When did that alice merton song play and how many spins did it get on krbz?

 

[CTListener]

When did that alice merton song play and how many spins did it get on krbz?

Aha! That tantalizing bit of info must be among the data that mere listeners shall never be privy to! Funny how that works.

 

[davideduardo]

Aha! That tantalizing bit of info must be among the data that mere listeners shall never be privy to! Funny how that works.

No different than radio ratings. The public gets a very generalized sample of the results, but nothing that is of any commercial value.

The people who pay for the results get extensive, actionable data.

 

[davideduardo]

When did that alice merton song play and how many spins did it get on krbz?

You should know that subscribers are bound to confidentiality in things like that sort of specific information.

 

[davideduardo]

Even if it airs at 3AM, a spin counts towards its location in the airplay chart. That's what the label is trying to affect. Typically a station won't put a new song in its highest rated daypart until it gets some research on the song. It won't get research until there are some spins. So it's a long process. It could take months between adding a song and when it moves into heavy rotation. It may get dropped before then because of bad research or a drop in other indicators. Every week, a rep from the label should be calling the station to promote increasing spins and improving the times played. They might bring up things like streaming numbers or concert attendance in the market. All of this is completely unknown by listeners, but it's where the rubber meets the road.

Everyone I have worked with excludes overnights in their monitor reports. That's because rotations may be different, and fill songs may be included because they is very little commercial time.

Most of our default lists are 6 AM to Midnight, or even 6 AM to 7 PM... 'cause that's where the listeners are.

For many years prior to PPM, it was thought that it took somewhere around 120 spins to get listeners from unfamiliarity through the period when the song was not embedded or rejected. That meant, given estimated TSL in most contemporary formats, about 3 weeks in a typical new music rotation that excluded AM drive.

With the PPM, there is a broader range of interpretations, complicated by exposure online. But it's still about 3 weeks on-air at your station before research will yield accurate data. And different kinds of songs can take shorter or longer times to become hits. Some novelty songs can be hits instantly, but stiff out just as fast. And ballads may take longer. Programmers get a feel within their own format, and the key element is killing stiffs before they do too much damage.

My favorite phone message was that of Jimmy Steale of Power 106 in LA in the late 90's: "Hi, you've reached Jimmy Steale at Power 106. If you are promoting a record, you can hang up now." The station was in the top 2 or 3 then, usually at the level of KIIS and just behind KLVE.

Many commercial stations and their PDs have very specific times for promoters to visit and some don't take calls.

 

[TheBigA]

For many years prior to PPM, it was thought that it took somewhere around 120 spins to get listeners from unfamiliarity through the period when the song was not embedded or rejected. That meant, given estimated TSL in most contemporary formats, about 3 weeks in a typical new music rotation that excluded AM drive.

In the country format, which is on average 26% currents, it's not unusual to see songs take 5 months to reach the Top 30, sometimes even longer. What happens is the early adders (who tend to be in smaller markets) reach saturation before the majors add it. Garth Brooks put out a duet with Trisha Yearwood in November, and the song is #35 this week. It's still not getting much airplay in mornings, but that's mostly because it's a ballad.

 

[davideduardo]

In the country format, which is on average 26% currents, it's not unusual to see songs take 5 months to reach the Top 30, sometimes even longer. What happens is the early adders (who tend to be in smaller markets) reach saturation before the majors add it. Garth Brooks put out a duet with Trisha Yearwood in November, and the song is #35 this week. It's still not getting much airplay in mornings, but that's mostly because it's a ballad.

We've seen that in country for some time. There are songs that will never hit "#1" in the trades because by the time they get to the bigger markets, the early adopters have moved the songs to recurrents. Yet when you look at a full 12 months, some of those are the year's biggest songs.

In formats where much of the audience also follows online sources intensely, the life cycle is shorter. A lot of that has to do with age where teens and young adults spend lots of time with new media; older adults may stream, but they don't do as much discovery scanning.

 

[tall_guy1]

You should know that subscribers are bound to confidentiality in things like that sort of specific information.

Well, what time of day did it air?

 

[davideduardo]

Well, what time of day did it air?

Aaaaaaarrrrrgghhh. I give up.

 

[tall_guy1]

Yeah, fair enough. Anyway, has alt ever been this pop? It seems to me that even in the early aughts when pop punk was big with sum 41, there'd be the shins and the white stripes making headway in the format. It seems like it was the place to go to "escape" pop. Now, it's something a lot probably want to escape itself. Even mainstream pop is better than it currently.

 

[davideduardo]

Yeah, fair enough. Anyway, has alt ever been this pop? It seems to me that even in the early aughts when pop punk was big with sum 41, there'd be the shins and the white stripes making headway in the format. It seems like it was the place to go to "escape" pop. Now, it's something a lot probably want to escape itself. Even mainstream pop is better than it currently.

What you are stating proves the problem the Alt format has: there are severely fragmented sub-groups that like totally separate sets of songs and only have agreement on a much smaller set of songs. So if you lean one way, you annoy another group and are boring at best to yet another.

Using factor analysis, several of us in research have the feeling that there are at least three significant divisions in the music preference or style groups. Don't ask me which songs or artists, as I thoroughly dislike 90% of Alt music and am focused on the numbers, not the songs; that is what you want a researcher to do!

The biggest issue, though, is whether Alt is a viable future format for one-to-all broadcast radio. Streams can have several different mixes, while on demand can just play what you want to hear. Radio can do neither of those things.

My favorite examples lie in a number of the big national formats in European nations where the on-air signal is the broadest format, but they stream 4, 5, 6 or more variants that include more currents, or various gold eras, or just songs in one language, etc. They combine all the streams and OTA in one package, and sell it combined. This is what national formats can do, but the U.S. is way behind much of the world in that regard and few stations have more than one format variant, usually based on an HD channel, but not a wide variety.

Think if you had one Alt "station" with a variety of streams, all with a different mix or focus. There might be five or six, and you might find just two of them likable... but you'd be loyal to the brand whichever channel you used most.

 

[tall_guy1]

What you are stating proves the problem the Alt format has: there are severely fragmented sub-groups that like totally separate sets of songs and only have agreement on a much smaller set of songs. So if you lean one way, you annoy another group and are boring at best to yet another.

Using factor analysis, several of us in research have the feeling that there are at least three significant divisions in the music preference or style groups. Don't ask me which songs or artists, as I thoroughly dislike 90% of Alt music and am focused on the numbers, not the songs; that is what you want a researcher to do!

The biggest issue, though, is whether Alt is a viable future format for one-to-all broadcast radio. Streams can have several different mixes, while on demand can just play what you want to hear. Radio can do neither of those things.

My favorite examples lie in a number of the big national formats in European nations where the on-air signal is the broadest format, but they stream 4, 5, 6 or more variants that include more currents, or various gold eras, or just songs in one language, etc. They combine all the streams and OTA in one package, and sell it combined. This is what national formats can do, but the U.S. is way behind much of the world in that regard and few stations have more than one format variant, usually based on an HD channel, but not a wide variety.

Think if you had one Alt "station" with a variety of streams, all with a different mix or focus. There might be five or six, and you might find just two of them likable... but you'd be loyal to the brand whichever channel you used most.

Adult Hits like Bob FM in Pittsburgh combines that many variants. Problem with Audacy alternatives is that if they want to pursue an alt-pop sound, they need to cater to that group better. Most of the songs are crossovers from CHR/Hot AC which can be found on other stations and not focused enough, while still being a very narrow playlist. It is a very "safe" pop sound that is mostly monotonous, but I'd imagine not exciting to any group. Seattle's KNDD is already starting to reverse course.

 

[macattack]

I think Alternative is one of those formats that still needs to cater to the local tastes to an extent - it's not like pop radio where the music can be expected to fit at a national level. Some markets will want a pop lean, others will want guitars, and so on. The Audacy experiment was an attempt at nationalizing Alternative but the New York playlist just did not resonate. It's no surprise KNDD is reverting first - Seattle was never going to go for alt-pop and KNDD has been getting embarrassed by a tiny noncommercial station for months.

 

[TheBigA]

KNDD has been getting embarrassed by a tiny noncommercial station for months.

Don't underestimate the power of a "tiny non-commercial station."

This format is a natural for non-com radio, especially if KNDD's only pitch is the 2 minute promise.

Hey, I'll take you one step higher. How about NO commercials at all? Pretty appealing.

In NYC, college non-coms like WFUV have been hurting commercial rock radio for a while.