He has a bunch still being played compared to, say, Travis Tritt, who in the eyes of country radio today only had two hits, "It's a Great Day to Be Alive" and "Take It Easy." But where we differ is that I accept that adding "T-R-O-U-B-L-E," "Anymore" and a half dozen other Tritt hits, along with similar numbers by Alan Jackson, Reba McEntire, the Judds, etc., would bloat and dilute the playlist with songs that research shows P1 listeners either don't recall or don't like as much as they do the others. (And by the way, I'd turn the volume up past 30 if "T-R-O-U-B-L-E" ever came on the radio here!)
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
iHeartMedia clusters that have zero local personalities
- Thread starter victorres43
- Start date
- Status
Ughhh...my definition of the same playlist is when two stations play the same songs. These two stations play the same songs. End of story.
For the record, "T-R-O-U-B-L-E" is a great song and it is one I haven't heard on the radio in 20 years.
Why are you arguing with me? You're making me miserable.
Current stations play current hits. Record labels release a group of songs, and radio stations play them. End of story.
Because we disagree. Why can’t we end this discussion and just agree to disagree!?
Stop this pissing contest or you will both be suspended! Understand?
Yes, sir. This will be my last response to The Big A. Thank you.
I used to not want to hear "T-R-O-U-B-L-E", but now I'm more open to it. There' another song I would now accept with the words "Here's a quarter. Call someone who cares." I was somewhat afraid to post those words.
Don't make Frank pull this car over!
Although, it's nice to see someone else get admonished rather than me for once...
Of course, I would. The problem is there's no evidence radio is losing listeners. It reaches roughly the same percentage of people it reached 50 years ago.
Now, what is true is that those people are spending less time with radio. I would agree that needs to be addressed. What I don't understand is how adding songs most listeners don't like or don't know would increase that. I agree with you that talk about the iHeartRadio Music Festival is boring to me, but, in listening to WCBS-FM since 8:00 AM Central this morning, I can't tell you one thing the jock has said. Something I learned early on in my long since over radio career is that sounding comfortable, fluid, and like you're enjoying what you're doing is far more important than what you actually say going into breaks. Almost no one is really listening to what you're actually saying, but people will notice if your presentation doesn't feel right.
Personally, I think the biggest problem plaguing radio today is the number of commercials. I've been working from home lately (broken foot). When I drive to work, however, my commute averages about 14 minutes. If a song starts on a local radio station while I'm backing out of my driveway and the station goes to commercial immediately afterward, there's a good chance I'll never hear another song for the rest of my drive. That's a problem, and, if I don't hear at least two songs after I turn a station on, I usually change stations.
What's more complex and something I don't know is how to fix that. If no one were willing to buy the last two spots in a 10 minute stopset, we wouldn't have 10 minute stopsets. Efforts to cut the number of avails, though, have not been shown to raise the prices on the remaining ones. Stations that have more but shorter breaks suffer increased tune out and a lower likelihood of those people coming back. Before it sold to private equity, Clear Channel had the "Less Is More" initiative where the longest spot would be 30, instead of 60, seconds, and it would sell 15 second spots as well in its breaks. It also offered 5 to 10 second "blinks" in the middle of music sweeps and allowed sponsors to purchase exclusive hours where only their businesses would receive any mentions and spots. That effort only lasted about a year and resulted in lower revenue while failing to increase the average audience share per station. Listeners particularly hated the blinks, which they found intrusive during the music sweeps.
I no longer have a job pondering how to solve that problem, but I do remember people trying. Finding something that works is the problem. If that's ever found, you can be certain everyone else will be doing it.
Thank you for your response. What about the evidence that radio is losing listeners that are under 50, and especially under 30?
I am for expanding playlists and decreasing repetition, not adding songs that people don't like. Some of the "Jack" stations successfully model how this can be done.
That is true. But let me ask you this: Do you ever pay attention to what Broadway Bill Lee is saying? Or whether what he said - even if you don't remember it - entertained you? There's a reason he is still employed and probably making a good salary.
Interesting. I never knew this.
This is a problem for me in two situations. At Christmas some of the big FM stations are playing mostly music I can listen to. I listen in the car and I'm not in the car that long, so once a commercial break starts, that's it. Usually there are other stations I can turn to, but not always.
In the mountains the one station I can listen to is an iHeart classic country station. For three days in June, if a commercial break starts, that's it. And if I'm in the car such a short time it's not usually long enough to bother me, I'll just hear commercials and not music. There is a translator with classic country which is usually playing music but I don't have a button for it. On the way to the mountains or on the way home I don't think there are any alternatives.
BigA told you where to go to see individual station playlists and moves from that era, and the top songs were very consistent from station to station. The only differences had to do with when a station went on a particular song, and that affected the rise, peak and decline slightly differently.
We've told you that playlist are based on the most mass appeal songs. Stations are not a record library that is better if it is bigger. Stations play the most the songs people want to hear the most... and if that means every 90 minutes for the powers, that is nothing new as Top 40 stations in the 50's and 60's did the same thing 60 and more years ago.
As Frank said, this is getting obsessive.
Here is a fact: CHR/Top 40 stations only have a couple of categories for all the currents they play.
The top 3 to 5 might be "powers" and all play at the same rotation. So #1 or #4 are actually the same. Numbers 5 to maybe 12 might play at a bit slower rotation, and them 12 to 25 even a bit slower. So song #12 is the same as #25... all of those play the same rate.
There is no #13 or #17 or #22 in rotation. There are three or four categories and each category plays the same.
So every song you mention has identical rotation. 1 equls 2 equals 3 equals 4 equals 5.
And different stations in different markets may have different divisions of the list for rotation. And different station may turn over different categories faster or slower. But they are essentially the same songs. Picasso and Van Gogh and Rembrandt painted with the same basic colors, but each created very unique stylings. Radio programmers also have considerable liberty to assemble their playlists, yet they are still playing the same songs quite consistently.
For all practical purposes, such stations as you mention are identical.
Of course there was overlap, but when you have:
1. CHR X that skewed adult during the day and more rhythmic at night
2. CHR y that skewed pop during the day and rhythmic at night
There were significant differences in playlists and songs aired. I observed this in many markets. This kind of variation doesn’t exist today, even between stations not owned by the same company.
What radio is principally losing is the amount of time each listener spends each week with radio. The levels are off by about 60% compared with 1995. However, more than half that Time Spent Listening loss is due to the greater precision of the PPM system which shows that people don't listen "from 9 to 5 at work" but listen in lots of little, often interrupted tidbits of time which might be less than half of what they would write in a diary.
Each station plays only as many songs as pass their research. There are likely no stations playing fewer than the number of songs that "passed" the testing system.
I was involved for well over a decade with a format my associate and I created where we consistently found over 1,000 testing songs and played them all. Lots were really strong, and other not as powerful. We rotated them in different categories based on score and other factors ("fit" based on cluster analysis) and rested a part of the library in rotating in-and-out cycles.
But I also took another station some years back in a top 15 market that was dead last with nearly 1500 songs and cut them to just over 300; in the first ratings just 90 days later the station was #1 with twice the listenership of the next station... where it stayed for 22 years in a market with over 110 stations in the survey area.
They don't test. They drive listeners away. They are, thus, not played.
That is not true. Around Y2K 95% of all people over age 12 listened to radio weekly. Today, in those in 18-35 the percentage is around 78% and in 35 and over it is in the mid 80's. Young adults listeners are off by by nearly 20% and older adults off by about 15%. That is in cume. In PPM markets, the hours of listening per week have gone from 18 or so to around 7 or 8..
Not when you look at Mediabase. Because certain songs get more spins in the morning or evening. That affects weighting. WLDI has five songs in heavy, while WHYI only has three. There's a big drop from heavy (131 spins) to the next category (61 spins) on WLDI. Not so on WHYI.
Also, WLDI is playing Morgan Wallen 61 times a week, and WHYI is not. There are several other songs among the most played that are different.
Ultimately all of these numbers are then incorporated into the national Mediabase or Billboard chart, where these songs are listed together, as has been the case since national charts began. The most played songs are organized by spins and weights, and someone is awarded a #1 song. That #1 song is likely played on every station in that format. As was the case 30 years ago.
The real issue here though is should two stations in the same format play the same or different songs? What makes a format a format? Don't listeners expect to hear the latest from their favorite stars on a Top 40 station? When I look at the streaming charts, I see ten songs in a row by Harry Styles. Is that what Top 40 stations should do? You tell me. I'll be waiting.
Last edited:
"Here's a Quarter" is Tritt's signature hit, equivalent to Johnny Paycheck's "Take This Job and Shove It." I'm surprised you're open to "T-R-O-U-B-L-E," which is a full-speed-ahead, electric-guitar-heavy remake of a minor Elvis hit. I wonder if you're thinking of the right song here.
- Status