How can they get away with that? Because the typical listener isn't an obsessive about stuff like that and probably couldn't tell you the year of a given record if you offered them ten thousand dollars and a brand new car.
That bears repeating, so I did.
People outside the business frequently come to the same conclusion as
@Signal Geek ... that these songs are, as one well-known poster used to claim, "burned to a crisp". Yet, even in the Classic Rock/Hits universe, there is still music testing going on (I know of 17 CH stations in the top 40 markets that still do that) and these songs which some of the armchair quarterbacks
think listeners are tired of still test the highest.
In fact, it is now easy to tell the participants here who have no industry experience -- or at least, no programming experience -- because sooner or later they make that claim. David (Eduardo) Gleason calls them "outliers" because their listening is outside the typical patterns by the majority of listeners ... people come and go all day, tuned in for short bursts of time, and do not hear most of the repeats that those with longer listening spans do.
And we program to the typical listener, not the outlier.
A good programmer recognizes and sets up the music scheduling rules to take advantage of the typical pattern. For example, I have two key rules set for the highest-playing categories on The Eighties Channel™ and they are not exactly industry secrets or proprietary: A song has to play in two other dayparts before it can repeat in one, and when it does repeat in a daypart it has to be in a different hour from the one it played in last that daypart.
I guarantee our naysayer that the vast majority of listeners will only hear a song repeat once -- occasionally twice -- in any given seven day period. And because CR/CH programmers adhere to the "consensus favorites" model, those repeats are welcomed if a day or two has passed since a listener heard a specific song on a station.
That "played a zillion times" is not, as SG intended it to be, an insult. It means the PD is doing the job right, and -- more importantly -- that programming philosophy is
not going to change (especially not because a bunch of people with no experience post their objection on a message board). And the sooner people get that in their collective heads, the sooner they will stop wasting time posting that non-complaint complaint.