WBOS

[Least]

As I said in an earlier post, my theory is that the issue with 90s rock hits now being branded as "classic rock" is that they are still in rotation on stations that are considered to be active rock. There isn't much distinction to the modern listener. It goes deeper into my theory concerning part of the listenership of rock stations shortening.

It's a double edge sword. The insiders state that the 90s hits are what still test well, and that there is a great amount of splitting in active rock to not be able to pin down a format that would generate a large audience. My argument against it is that sticking to the 90s hits only pushes potential younger listeners away. In 2021, 90s hits to younger audiences is what 70s hits were to most people in the 90s, their "parents' music." With WBOS, my theory is that people are simply turned away because the music can be found anywhere, and it's been beyond overplayed for the last 20 years as "active rock." We can say 25+ years, counting when it was new. There's isn't a distinction. In all honesty, as the 70s and 80s age out of key demos, I hypothesize that within the next decade, WZLX will be in the same boat. It is a heritage station, but as the generations of 70s and 80s "age out," the next group is the overplayed 90s hits that are still in heavy rotation on active rock stations. Because of the over-emphesis on 90s over the last 20 years, there isn't that much to become classic rock in the next few decades. As active rock dried up 15 years ago, it's my hypothesis that classic rock will dry up as well within the next decades.

For this format specifically, I see the only way is for someone to gamble on a section of modern rock and see if it's profitable. Classic rock will thin out, until this generation ages into the format. But in all honesty, I see rock on terrestrial radio going away within the next decade or two. Companies will go with formats that are tested well before taking a chance.

The over-reliance on 90s combined with little filtering in of current (younger) acts already thinned out active rock, and classic rock will go the same way in the coming echo.

 

[TheBigA]

With WBOS, my theory is that people are simply turned away because the music can be found anywhere, and it's been beyond overplayed for the last 20 years as "active rock."

What music is NOT overplayed? If it's good, it gets played. If it's B-sides and obscurities, there's no demand.

 

[Retro]

What music is NOT overplayed? If it's good, it gets played. If it's B-sides and obscurities, there's no demand.

I will go as far to say that it is really the lowest common denominator. There is a reason why radio stations play the same songs over and over. The average, not avid listener will want to hear those songs that nauseate the seasoned music listener.

 

[davideduardo]

I will go as far to say that it is really the lowest common denominator. There is a reason why radio stations play the same songs over and over. The average, not avid listener will want to hear those songs that nauseate the seasoned music listener.

Based on doing thousands of music tests and research projects, I can give you a little perspective.

Those "seasoned music listeners" are what we call "outliers". Programming a "one for many" radio station to outliers guarantees failure. When you look for the songs most people all like, you get mass appeal; that means many listeners.

Outliers have the additional quality of being individually unique. You can not satisfy all outliers, as each one has different and highly defined, highly defended, personal tastes.

There is a reason why cooking shows feature chicken and beef and codfish, and not pheasant and venison and eel. The former have mass appeal, and the latter are niche menu items that few people like or want to prepare at home. Same goes for mainstream vs. esoteric music choices.

When an outlier is found in a music test... with contrarian and "out of the norm" scores on many songs... their participation is removed from the final tabulations.

 

[TheBigA]

Outliers have the additional quality of being individually unique. You can not satisfy all outliers, as each one has different and highly defined, highly defended, personal tastes.

The reality is they were among the first to leave radio 20 years ago. And they never were very loyal in the first place.

 

[Retro]

The reality is they were among the first to leave radio 20 years ago. And they never were very loyal in the first place.

I guess that is why perhaps a non-profit, listener supported format could be ideal for such a listener. I used to have this motto back in the day if I were programming a radio station, it would have the liner "You always want to tune in, because if you miss a particular song, you may never hear it again!"

 

[Deleted User]

and that is SXM has a Deep Tracks channel, among others.... lets face it, stations are programed with whatever 300 songs test well, and that list changes as older songs drop off and newer songs are added... it isn't about the music it is about filling the time between commercials with content that will keep as many people as possible from changing the station or going to a SXM, Pandora, Amazon Music or other platform

 

[Retro]

All that I know was once I joined a group of people in a Community, when people would make requests, it seemed as though the average person would almost always request a song such as "Happy" by Pharrell Williams. I would ultimately request the parody "Tacky" by "Weird Al" Yankovic in-spite of it.

 

[davideduardo]

The reality is they were among the first to leave radio 20 years ago. And they never were very loyal in the first place.

They only have used radio as a last resource for the last 50 years. They had cassettes or CDs in the car. They downloaded songs for the first Apple music devices.

Included there was the long-time 5% to 6% of people who did not use radio. Today, it is around 9% to 11%; as always, mostly focused in the youngest demos and the very, very old.

They never were loyal to a radio station, as you say.

 

[Retro]

They only have used radio as a last resource for the last 50 years. They had cassettes or CDs in the car. They downloaded songs for the first Apple music devices.

They never were loyal to a radio station, as you say.

I have to disagree, I was very loyal to both competing Top 40 Stations during the early 1990s. During the late 90s it was both Mix 98.5, and WXLO. The latter was more favored, because they didn't shred all the older Rhythmic leaning stuff from their playlist. Whereas Mix 98.5 became a pure bread Modern AC instead.

 

[davideduardo]

I have to disagree, I was very loyal to both competing Top 40 Stations during the early 1990s. During the late 90s it was both Mix 98.5, and WXLO. The latter was more favored, because they didn't shred all the older Rhythmic leaning stuff from their playlist. Whereas Mix 98.5 became a pure bread Modern AC instead.

If you are or were loyal to a station or iterations of the same format, then you are not an "outlier". Radio users who don't find a format or station that they truly like are "settlers" and that is almost a synonym for an outlier. However, sometimes a new format or station will precisely serve outliers from existing formats and become successful; in that case the listeners just did not like any station enough to be "loyal" to it.

 

[Least]

What music is NOT overplayed? If it's good, it gets played. If it's B-sides and obscurities, there's no demand.

My main point is that what would be considered modern rock on some stations is mostly playing what others are now (rightfully) calling the next generation of classic rock. The problem this creates is a sense that older folks aren't clamoring to finally hear these songs as they've been played as "modern" for the last 25 years, and in many places still are. Yet, modern isn't getting listeners because they play songs that are no longer relatable to younger audiences. People who were born after 9/11 are now in the prime 18+ demos, yet modern/active rock still focuses on songs before they were born.

 

[TheBigA]

My main point is that what would be considered modern rock on some stations is mostly playing what others are now (rightfully) calling the next generation of classic rock.

Maybe you need to be specific of what stations you're talking about. WROR is #3 with 18-34 and 18-49. That's not bad for a station playing older music. WZLX is #4 18-49. There really isn't an "active rock" station in Boston, is there? The biggest problem we see now is the current "modern/active" rock music isn't very popular on any platform. Young people 18-34 in Boston either listen to Kiss or the Sports Hub.

 

[Least]

Maybe you need to be specific of what stations you're talking about. WROR is #3 with 18-34 and 18-49. That's not bad for a station playing older music. WZLX is #4 18-49. There really isn't an "active rock" station in Boston, is there? The biggest problem we see now is the current "modern/active" rock music isn't very popular on any platform. Young people 18-34 in Boston either listen to Kiss or the Sports Hub.

Well then it's obvious you didn't fully read my posts. This entire thread is about WBOS, and my posts have been specifically about 90s Era rock music.

 

[TheBigA]

Well then it's obvious you didn't fully read my posts. This entire thread is about WBOS, and my posts have been specifically about 90s Era rock music.

I get that, but what I'm talking about is younger audiences. That's what I thought you were talking about in Post 72. So let's say that WBOS moved it's music to active/modern rock (which maybe what you were saying). There's no guarantee it'll do better with younger demos than it is playing 30 year old songs. Or perhaps the rock audience is satisfied with WERS.

 

[CTListener]

I get that, but what I'm talking about is younger audiences. That's what I thought you were talking about in Post 72. So let's say that WBOS moved it's music to active/modern rock (which maybe what you were saying). There's no guarantee it'll do better with younger demos than it is playing 30 year old songs. Or perhaps the rock audience is satisfied with WERS.

If that's the case, then rock is truly (as I've long suspected) a dying genre and purely rhythmic forms have become the de facto generational music across all economic, social, ethnic and racial lines among millennials and the tail end of Generation Z. What's left of the younger demos that used to prefer current rock almost monolithically (white working-class and suburban) is now split among the fragments of rock, hip-hop and country music.

 

[Least]

I get that, but what I'm talking about is younger audiences. That's what I thought you were talking about in Post 72. So let's say that WBOS moved it's music to active/modern rock (which maybe what you were saying). There's no guarantee it'll do better with younger demos than it is playing 30 year old songs. Or perhaps the rock audience is satisfied with WERS.

A couple thoughts:

1. My subsequent reply did mention younger audiences. My point is that this specific format (rock) is fading away with younger audiences, because what is considered modern rock on most stations that identify as an active/modern rock station play the same music that WBOS is calling "the next generation of classic rock." Yet, people say that younger audiences just don't listen. My theory is they don't listen because most of the music played on the rock stations is truly classic rock, and 20 years of relying on the tested 90s songs has partially been a reason for them turning to something that relates to them.

2. In our past discussions, you stated that an issue with rock is that it's fragmented, and people can pin down a style that's prominent, such as grunge was in the 90s and hair bands were in the 80s. With that, WERS isn't rock. They are alternative, and I agree that they satisfy a an audience for alternative. I think that's part of the reason why after Beasley dropped alternative from WBOS, nobody jumped to fill the hole. The other is, as people say, "what sells."

Before you brought up other formats that the younger audience leans towards. Absolutely. Such wasn't always the case. I've debated here for a few years that 20 years of leaning on 90s tracks was part of what pushed fans of new rock away. The industry went with what sells, and such is the natural result of that decision. Eventually, it won't relate to a younger audience.

But an echo result is what we see with WBOS (my theory). WBOS is now trying to repackage music that one group already walked away from, while another group doesn't need to jump from their station of choice to get. Most of their playljst, I can get on WGIR-FM and WHEB out of the NH. People by Worcester can get it through other outlets, and the same down south. People in the city have WZLX, which includes the next generation with the original classic rock hits, and we see that they are loyal. My belief is that if someone did take a chance (which isn't normal in the modern day industry) and did a WBCN style of gutting all the 90s songs, with a playlist of modern, we would have a younger audience grow, all while truly defining 90s as classic rock.

 

[Least]

If that's the case, then rock is truly (as I've long suspected) a dying genre and purely rhythmic forms have become the de facto generational music across all economic, social, ethnic and racial lines among millennials and the tail end of Generation Z. What's left of the younger demos that used to prefer current rock almost monolithically (white working-class and suburban) is now split among the fragments of rock, hip-hop and country music.

I wouldn't debate that, in radio. I believe the audience is out there, but are conditioned to find it elsewhere. My take is that two decades of little new and relying on the same seven to eight years of songs, under the guise of "new" is partly to blame.

 

[Least]

I have been focused on the radio end when saying "partly to blame/at fault." That is unjust to point the finger solely at radio. Their are multiple things in play, with my observation. As this board focuses on radio, this is why I choose to highlight what I see with radio's involvement. But it needs to be clear, that blaming solely radio for rock is like McDonald's for obesity in America. They are part of what is happening, but not the main cause.

The early 2000s delivered horrible bands that didn't pan out. That's the record industry's fault. That caused radio to go with testing and focus on 90s songs. From the early 2000s group, only a handful are still considered prevalent today.

Let's be fair. Napster didn't do any favors for the format. It's a group that is big on anti-establishment. That opened the door for finding music other ways.

Changes in culture are a major factor. In the 90s rock stations relied on Stern, Opie and Anthony, Bubba, Mancow, etc for it's edge. The early to mid-2000s culture changes and Janet Jackson's boob damaged that. Today's culture won't accept that at all.

So we take away the edge that existed, combine it with mostly horrible bands that burnt out, add in a reliance on older 90s songs, and new mediums to find what isn't being played, and that gets us to now. With that, I argue (debate) that the bands issue has been fixed since the 2010s. But a decade of this norm in rock stations created a generation that connected with other formats. I don't think we need the edge back. But, we do need new bands for this generation to form a connection to make rock prevalent again.

David discussed outliers and loyal listeners. I say two things to that.

1. In research, ignoring an outlier is grounds for bad research. You don't ignore an outlier. You acknowledge it's existence. You monitor to see if that outlier grows to become a norm. No, you don't format for that single outlier. But if that outlier grows, it's something to take notice.

2. Loyalty isn't owed. It's earned. Your industry has a history of slapping loyal listeners in the face for what's best for your wallet. You're a service industry. You need us to continue, not the other way around. Or has streaming and satellite not hurt your industry in some ways? I was loyal to WBCN. What did your industry do? It stripmined the station down to playing only a handful of new songs paid for by the record industry (legal or not), whittled the station down to those 5 to 10 songs, then told me that I'd rather be hearing sports talk. So, I as the listener don't owe you any loyalty. I choose when to change my preferences, not you as an industry. I owe the bands that I like loyalty. You're a medium for me to enjoy those bands. You provide the service, then I become loyal to the service. To me that's a sense of narcisim to think we owe anything to you.

 

[TheBigA]

My belief is that if someone did take a chance (which isn't normal in the modern day industry) and did a WBCN style of gutting all the 90s songs, with a playlist of modern, we would have a younger audience grow, all while truly defining 90s as classic rock.

That would be a fine idea if the music created the same kind of demand that it did when WBCN was on the air. It doesn't.

I owe the bands that I like loyalty. You're a medium for me to enjoy those bands. You provide the service, then I become loyal to the service. To me that's a sense of narcisim to think we owe anything to you.

As I often say, radio is not in the music distribution business. There are other services that do that. They are mainly subscription services, and they have customer service departments. That's not what radio does. If you want to enjoy certain bands, and you have loyalty to those bands, then you can establish a relationship directly with those bands. Most of them offer paid memberships in their fan clubs. If you are loyal to bands, you should be supporting them directly for their music. You don't need a middleman.