In a thread below that got way too long, it was stated that research shows listeners will only accept a 300-400 song playlist. My question is..........what came first, the chicken or the egg? Will current listeners not accept more than 300-400 songs, or are people who would demand more than 400 songs no longer listeners? Did limited playlists drive so many listeners away that only those who love 300-400 song playlists are left? And isn't terrestrial radio's newest salvation, "Jack", all about expanded playlists?
-
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
300 Song Playlists
- Thread starter TheFonz
- Start date
P
Phantom
Guest
Otto Mation
> In a thread below that got way too long, it was stated that
> research shows listeners will only accept a 300-400 song
> playlist. My question is..........what came first, the
> chicken or the egg?
Are you referring to natural birth on in-vitro fertilization?
> Will current listeners not accept more
> than 300-400 songs, or are people who would demand more than
> 400 songs no longer listeners?
Today's listeners seem happy with 300-400 songs.
> Did limited playlists drive
> so many listeners away that only those who love 300-400 song
> playlists are left?
Well, one example, many teenagers don't listen to radio at all and prefer their iPods over Marconi's invention.
>And isn't terrestrial radio's newest
> salvation, "Jack", all about expanded playlists?
Sort of, but of course, as JACK says, "they play what they want.", not what YOU or anyone else wants
.
Seriously, it is a glorified jukebox.
And a jukebox does not demand a salary ... or benefits ... of any kind. It is happy to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with no time off.
Anyone with rudimentary programming skills could put JACK on the air -- so a lot of stations did.
No jocks, no weather, no news, no sports, no information ... at all in most markets.
Just a smarmy, wise guy liner station on a automation system.
Otto Mation is no substitution for a human being ... no soul.
> In a thread below that got way too long, it was stated that
> research shows listeners will only accept a 300-400 song
> playlist. My question is..........what came first, the
> chicken or the egg?
Are you referring to natural birth on in-vitro fertilization?
> Will current listeners not accept more
> than 300-400 songs, or are people who would demand more than
> 400 songs no longer listeners?
Today's listeners seem happy with 300-400 songs.
> Did limited playlists drive
> so many listeners away that only those who love 300-400 song
> playlists are left?
Well, one example, many teenagers don't listen to radio at all and prefer their iPods over Marconi's invention.
>And isn't terrestrial radio's newest
> salvation, "Jack", all about expanded playlists?
Sort of, but of course, as JACK says, "they play what they want.", not what YOU or anyone else wants
.Seriously, it is a glorified jukebox.
And a jukebox does not demand a salary ... or benefits ... of any kind. It is happy to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with no time off.
Anyone with rudimentary programming skills could put JACK on the air -- so a lot of stations did.
No jocks, no weather, no news, no sports, no information ... at all in most markets.
Just a smarmy, wise guy liner station on a automation system.
Otto Mation is no substitution for a human being ... no soul.
> In a thread below that got way too long, it was stated that
> research shows listeners will only accept a 300-400 song
> playlist.
That is not what I said. An adult formatted station will routinely test around 600 songs or more, and will look individually at the results of each song. The ones that have good positive and passion scores without large negative (read: "tune out if I hear it") scores get played.
Nowhere is a listener asked about how many different songs they would like to hear.
What happens is that there is, in most formats, a sweet spot of the approximate number of songs that are broadly liked and which turn off no significant group. Use of factor and cluster analysis helps to determine what the mainstream is and what constitutes fringe or splinter groups. After analyzing all this data, you end up with the numbers of songs I mentioned.
If you play songs beyond those that are broadly accepted, the listener perception of variety decreases proprtionally and the TSL declines radically.
> My question is..........what came first, the
> chicken or the egg? Will current listeners not accept more
> than 300-400 songs, or are people who would demand more than
> 400 songs no longer listeners?
Since ther eis no evidence that there are any fewer (cume) listeners today than 40 years ago, it must be that listeners really have a limited number of songs all can agree on and which do not drive off anyone.
> Did limited playlists drive
> so many listeners away that only those who love 300-400 song
> playlists are left?
No. Larger lists drive listeners away, but they do not leave radio, they just listen less or listen to other stations that play stronger songs.
> And isn't terrestrial radio's newest
> salvation, "Jack", all about expanded playlists?
>
Not really. It is about an attitude more than the playlist... Jack lists are highly researched and are not that much bigger than conventional adult hits stations.
You can not compare a Jack, targeted 35-54, with an oldies station, with mostly 55+ listeners. So many of the 60's tunes are crispy critters that there is a limited library that is acceptable. Jack plays 70's to 90's and has more to draw from, but is still very limited.
> research shows listeners will only accept a 300-400 song
> playlist.
That is not what I said. An adult formatted station will routinely test around 600 songs or more, and will look individually at the results of each song. The ones that have good positive and passion scores without large negative (read: "tune out if I hear it") scores get played.
Nowhere is a listener asked about how many different songs they would like to hear.
What happens is that there is, in most formats, a sweet spot of the approximate number of songs that are broadly liked and which turn off no significant group. Use of factor and cluster analysis helps to determine what the mainstream is and what constitutes fringe or splinter groups. After analyzing all this data, you end up with the numbers of songs I mentioned.
If you play songs beyond those that are broadly accepted, the listener perception of variety decreases proprtionally and the TSL declines radically.
> My question is..........what came first, the
> chicken or the egg? Will current listeners not accept more
> than 300-400 songs, or are people who would demand more than
> 400 songs no longer listeners?
Since ther eis no evidence that there are any fewer (cume) listeners today than 40 years ago, it must be that listeners really have a limited number of songs all can agree on and which do not drive off anyone.
> Did limited playlists drive
> so many listeners away that only those who love 300-400 song
> playlists are left?
No. Larger lists drive listeners away, but they do not leave radio, they just listen less or listen to other stations that play stronger songs.
> And isn't terrestrial radio's newest
> salvation, "Jack", all about expanded playlists?
>
Not really. It is about an attitude more than the playlist... Jack lists are highly researched and are not that much bigger than conventional adult hits stations.
You can not compare a Jack, targeted 35-54, with an oldies station, with mostly 55+ listeners. So many of the 60's tunes are crispy critters that there is a limited library that is acceptable. Jack plays 70's to 90's and has more to draw from, but is still very limited.
Re: Otto Mation
>
> Well, one example, many teenagers don't listen to radio at
> all and prefer their iPods over Marconi's invention.
Actually, teen cume is still in the mid-90's range, same as a decade or two decades ago. The only change is that teens listen less time, but part of that is because advertisers do not want teen audiences, so very few stations target teens any more.
>
> Seriously, it is a glorified jukebox.
Because they found that many listeners were sick of jocks. They want a jukebox. They want the Jack attitude. They are the listeners who tune to ohter stations, hear a jock, and yell at the radio, "shut the f--k up." This come out constantly in research of 35-44 non Hispanic whites.
>
> Anyone with rudimentary programming skills could put JACK on
> the air -- so a lot of stations did.
But the good ones are very intricate, among the most complicated in the world in rotations and play scheduling. Not easy.
>
> Well, one example, many teenagers don't listen to radio at
> all and prefer their iPods over Marconi's invention.
Actually, teen cume is still in the mid-90's range, same as a decade or two decades ago. The only change is that teens listen less time, but part of that is because advertisers do not want teen audiences, so very few stations target teens any more.
>
> Seriously, it is a glorified jukebox.
Because they found that many listeners were sick of jocks. They want a jukebox. They want the Jack attitude. They are the listeners who tune to ohter stations, hear a jock, and yell at the radio, "shut the f--k up." This come out constantly in research of 35-44 non Hispanic whites.
>
> Anyone with rudimentary programming skills could put JACK on
> the air -- so a lot of stations did.
But the good ones are very intricate, among the most complicated in the world in rotations and play scheduling. Not easy.
You know, I find the argument about having only 300-400 songs rather amusing, but I've yet to have anyone give me a convincing argument that it works. I just don't buy the "people only want to hear so many songs" routine. I was a program director until January of this year at a country station, and let me just state that when I took over, our playlist was only about 500 songs all no more than 3-4 years old. I threw that format out, brought back many of the 90's hits, as well as songs from the 60's, 70's, and 80's. All told, we were rotating about 2500 songs. Guess what? We more than DOUBLED our audience share. We had a share of 52! According to the so-called experts who say you can only play 400 or so songs (be it country, oldies, AC, etc)and be successful, that should never have happened. I think the real problem is (and I don't believe most programmers in most formats get this)in the presentation. If you know what you are doing, you can still get a good rotation of your best testing songs, yet still slip in some good songs that help break up the sameness. As a listener, I get extremely annoyed at stations that play the same few songs over and over. For example, the old WENS in Indianapolis was very bad. We used to joke that you could listen to them Monday and Tuesday, and you didn't have to listen the rest of the week, because you already knew what they would be playing. Plus, Q95, the classic rock station, there, was as bad if not worse. Me and some co-workers at an electronics company used to joke about how they seemed to play Pink Floyd every half hour. People do notice if you're playing the same thing over and over again, and I don't care what anyone says, it's not good radio. I'll even go as far as to say that should I get another opportunity to program a station, be it oldies or country either one, I HOPE my competition is playing only 400 or 500 songs, because in a matter of months I will have taken a large amount of their audience away. That's not being egotistical, either, that's simply truth.
> In a thread below that got way too long, it was stated that
> research shows listeners will only accept a 300-400 song
> playlist. My question is..........what came first, the
> chicken or the egg? Will current listeners not accept more
> than 300-400 songs, or are people who would demand more than
> 400 songs no longer listeners? Did limited playlists drive
> so many listeners away that only those who love 300-400 song
> playlists are left? And isn't terrestrial radio's newest
> salvation, "Jack", all about expanded playlists?
>
> In a thread below that got way too long, it was stated that
> research shows listeners will only accept a 300-400 song
> playlist. My question is..........what came first, the
> chicken or the egg? Will current listeners not accept more
> than 300-400 songs, or are people who would demand more than
> 400 songs no longer listeners? Did limited playlists drive
> so many listeners away that only those who love 300-400 song
> playlists are left? And isn't terrestrial radio's newest
> salvation, "Jack", all about expanded playlists?
>
> You know, I find the argument about having only 300-400
> songs rather amusing, but I've yet to have anyone give me a
> convincing argument that it works. I just don't buy the
> "people only want to hear so many songs" routine. I was a
> program director until January of this year at a country
> station, and let me just state that when I took over, our
> playlist was only about 500 songs all no more than 3-4 years
> old. I threw that format out, brought back many of the 90's
> hits, as well as songs from the 60's, 70's, and 80's. All
> told, we were rotating about 2500 songs. Guess what? We
> more than DOUBLED our audience share. We had a share of 52!
I can find no station in a rated market with a share over 26, and that is from every rated station in every rated market in the US in Spring, 2005.
Unless you can give us the calls and market and explain why no station appears with a 52 share, I will have to attribute this whole story to the realm of fabrication to make a point that otherwise could not be made.
A lie is not a good premise for a conclusion, you know.
> According to the so-called experts who say you can only
> play 400 or so songs (be it country, oldies, AC, etc)and be
> successful, that should never have happened.
No expert has made a decision about playlist length. What we do is see how many songs we can find that will test positively and not harm our stations by being included in the playlist. The length of the list is self-determining, in fact.
> I think the
> real problem is (and I don't believe most programmers in
> most formats get this)in the presentation. If you know what
> you are doing, you can still get a good rotation of your
> best testing songs, yet still slip in some good songs that
> help break up the sameness.
Depending on the format, once you get out of the songs that are positive, the ones left over are stiffs. In other words, no matter how nice the glue you put it together with, the songs are stiffs.
I have given several times my best example which is a classic rock station in a market of 17 million. We had 450 songs, a competitor decided to go with 1800 songs. We kept our 16 share, the competitor got, at best, a 1.8. A year later, out of format. The problem was playing 1350 stiffs, and had nothing to do with presentation.
> As a listener, I get extremely
> annoyed at stations that play the same few songs over and
> over. For example, the old WENS in Indianapolis was very
> bad. We used to joke that you could listen to them Monday
> and Tuesday, and you didn't have to listen the rest of the
> week, because you already knew what they would be playing.
> Plus, Q95, the classic rock station, there, was as bad if
> not worse. Me and some co-workers at an electronics company
> used to joke about how they seemed to play Pink Floyd every
> half hour.
You said you were a PD. Now you work at a parts house?
> People do notice if you're playing the same
> thing over and over again, and I don't care what anyone
> says, it's not good radio.
Test some real listeners sometime. If they have 25 favorite songs by one artist, you had better play them all, even if that means playing one every hour. It is called, "playing what th elistener wants." Doing that gets ratings. Playing obscure deep cuts does not, as Lee Abrams proved back in the early 70's when he killed the free form album rock stations with tight lists of hits people actually cared about.
> I'll even go as far as to say
> that should I get another opportunity to program a station,
> be it oldies or country either one, I HOPE my competition is
> playing only 400 or 500 songs, because in a matter of months
> I will have taken a large amount of their audience away.
> That's not being egotistical, either, that's simply truth.
And I hope I sometime get another competitor playing 2000 songs. The last one was like shooting fish ina barrel. In fact, it was not even challenging, as we knew from call out and research that the other station was dead before it was on for 24 full hours.
In any case, let us know what your mythical radio station was called... and why you are not in radio still if you got twice the share of hte highest rated station in the USA today. Right.
> songs rather amusing, but I've yet to have anyone give me a
> convincing argument that it works. I just don't buy the
> "people only want to hear so many songs" routine. I was a
> program director until January of this year at a country
> station, and let me just state that when I took over, our
> playlist was only about 500 songs all no more than 3-4 years
> old. I threw that format out, brought back many of the 90's
> hits, as well as songs from the 60's, 70's, and 80's. All
> told, we were rotating about 2500 songs. Guess what? We
> more than DOUBLED our audience share. We had a share of 52!
I can find no station in a rated market with a share over 26, and that is from every rated station in every rated market in the US in Spring, 2005.
Unless you can give us the calls and market and explain why no station appears with a 52 share, I will have to attribute this whole story to the realm of fabrication to make a point that otherwise could not be made.
A lie is not a good premise for a conclusion, you know.
> According to the so-called experts who say you can only
> play 400 or so songs (be it country, oldies, AC, etc)and be
> successful, that should never have happened.
No expert has made a decision about playlist length. What we do is see how many songs we can find that will test positively and not harm our stations by being included in the playlist. The length of the list is self-determining, in fact.
> I think the
> real problem is (and I don't believe most programmers in
> most formats get this)in the presentation. If you know what
> you are doing, you can still get a good rotation of your
> best testing songs, yet still slip in some good songs that
> help break up the sameness.
Depending on the format, once you get out of the songs that are positive, the ones left over are stiffs. In other words, no matter how nice the glue you put it together with, the songs are stiffs.
I have given several times my best example which is a classic rock station in a market of 17 million. We had 450 songs, a competitor decided to go with 1800 songs. We kept our 16 share, the competitor got, at best, a 1.8. A year later, out of format. The problem was playing 1350 stiffs, and had nothing to do with presentation.
> As a listener, I get extremely
> annoyed at stations that play the same few songs over and
> over. For example, the old WENS in Indianapolis was very
> bad. We used to joke that you could listen to them Monday
> and Tuesday, and you didn't have to listen the rest of the
> week, because you already knew what they would be playing.
> Plus, Q95, the classic rock station, there, was as bad if
> not worse. Me and some co-workers at an electronics company
> used to joke about how they seemed to play Pink Floyd every
> half hour.
You said you were a PD. Now you work at a parts house?
> People do notice if you're playing the same
> thing over and over again, and I don't care what anyone
> says, it's not good radio.
Test some real listeners sometime. If they have 25 favorite songs by one artist, you had better play them all, even if that means playing one every hour. It is called, "playing what th elistener wants." Doing that gets ratings. Playing obscure deep cuts does not, as Lee Abrams proved back in the early 70's when he killed the free form album rock stations with tight lists of hits people actually cared about.
> I'll even go as far as to say
> that should I get another opportunity to program a station,
> be it oldies or country either one, I HOPE my competition is
> playing only 400 or 500 songs, because in a matter of months
> I will have taken a large amount of their audience away.
> That's not being egotistical, either, that's simply truth.
And I hope I sometime get another competitor playing 2000 songs. The last one was like shooting fish ina barrel. In fact, it was not even challenging, as we knew from call out and research that the other station was dead before it was on for 24 full hours.
In any case, let us know what your mythical radio station was called... and why you are not in radio still if you got twice the share of hte highest rated station in the USA today. Right.
O
OldiesCat
Guest
Playlists
First, "Jack" isn't terrestrial radio's newest salvation. It's a fresh, new approach that's capitalizing on growing listener frustration with limited and repetitive playlists.
What I think you're misinterpreting is "research shows listeners will only accept a 300-400 song playlist" and I don't read it like that. There are X number of legitimate hits in most library-based formats. But playing those songs along year after year is what leads to listeners becoming disatisified. That being said, while most of the time you're playing the biggest 350 hits (or whatever number is right for your market), it's not difficult or risky to weave other hits into the mix that don't come with a lot of negatives (burn, unfamiliarity, high dislike scores). A little goes a long way and can keep your core library from becoming the same old/same old.
> In a thread below that got way too long, it was stated that
> research shows listeners will only accept a 300-400 song
> playlist. My question is..........what came first, the
> chicken or the egg? Will current listeners not accept more
> than 300-400 songs, or are people who would demand more than
> 400 songs no longer listeners? Did limited playlists drive
> so many listeners away that only those who love 300-400 song
> playlists are left? And isn't terrestrial radio's newest
> salvation, "Jack", all about expanded playlists?
>
First, "Jack" isn't terrestrial radio's newest salvation. It's a fresh, new approach that's capitalizing on growing listener frustration with limited and repetitive playlists.
What I think you're misinterpreting is "research shows listeners will only accept a 300-400 song playlist" and I don't read it like that. There are X number of legitimate hits in most library-based formats. But playing those songs along year after year is what leads to listeners becoming disatisified. That being said, while most of the time you're playing the biggest 350 hits (or whatever number is right for your market), it's not difficult or risky to weave other hits into the mix that don't come with a lot of negatives (burn, unfamiliarity, high dislike scores). A little goes a long way and can keep your core library from becoming the same old/same old.
> In a thread below that got way too long, it was stated that
> research shows listeners will only accept a 300-400 song
> playlist. My question is..........what came first, the
> chicken or the egg? Will current listeners not accept more
> than 300-400 songs, or are people who would demand more than
> 400 songs no longer listeners? Did limited playlists drive
> so many listeners away that only those who love 300-400 song
> playlists are left? And isn't terrestrial radio's newest
> salvation, "Jack", all about expanded playlists?
>
P
Phantom
Guest
Re: Otto Mation
> > Well, one example, many teenagers don't listen to radio at
> > all and prefer their iPods over Marconi's invention.
> Actually, teen cume is still in the mid-90's range, same as
> a decade or two decades ago. The only change is that teens
> listen less time, but part of that is because advertisers do
> not want teen audiences, so very few stations target teens
> any more.
True, but those teens will grow up.
Sooner ... rather than later as was my experience.
However, I carefully stated "many" ... not most.
What knows what will happen in the future when they mature?
Absolutely, no way of predicting their listening habits ... now.
Even Arbitron admitted its own shortcomings recently in order to tout its new measurement methods. That was PR.
Many teens ARE bored by much of radio, and those with the money can "program their own station" these days.
> > Seriously, it is a glorified jukebox.
> Because they found that many listeners were sick of jocks.
Sick of SOME jocks ... and lame "jokes".
Many still garner great ratings and revenue for the station.
That does not make it any less of a glorified jukebox.
That's an apt description of JACK whether someone likes it ... or not.
>> They want a jukebox. They want the Jack attitude.
That has yet to be proved in the long run.
You may be right, but you and I don't owe crystal balls?
Do you?
Did that come out right?
> They are the listeners who tune to ohter stations, hear a jock, and
> yell at the radio, "shut the f--k up." This come out
> constantly in research of 35-44 non Hispanic whites.
Yeah, no doubt.
I say it ... and worse.
And even worse, I say it to MYSELF.
Again, the question is: How long this will last?
John Rook firmly believes this is a "one-hit wonder".
I wonder about that, but I would not put down bets either way.
> > Anyone with rudimentary programming skills could put JACK
> on
> > the air -- so a lot of stations did.
>
> But the good ones are very intricate, among the most
> complicated in the world in rotations and play scheduling.
> Not easy.
The later paragraph I agree with ... the play scheduling.
But managing an air staff's problems is even tougher.
And even after all my rating and raving about the JACK format, I suggested trying, in essence, a "jukebox" on the air at a suburban station instead of the satellite stuff.
It was a nightmare ... or worse.
A long-time programmer said, "Do you know what you are getting into?"
Of course I didn't.
But I am still intrigued by it.
Never too old to learn.
> > Well, one example, many teenagers don't listen to radio at
> > all and prefer their iPods over Marconi's invention.
> Actually, teen cume is still in the mid-90's range, same as
> a decade or two decades ago. The only change is that teens
> listen less time, but part of that is because advertisers do
> not want teen audiences, so very few stations target teens
> any more.
True, but those teens will grow up.
Sooner ... rather than later as was my experience
.However, I carefully stated "many" ... not most.
What knows what will happen in the future when they mature?
Absolutely, no way of predicting their listening habits ... now.
Even Arbitron admitted its own shortcomings recently in order to tout its new measurement methods. That was PR.
Many teens ARE bored by much of radio, and those with the money can "program their own station" these days.
> > Seriously, it is a glorified jukebox.
> Because they found that many listeners were sick of jocks.
Sick of SOME jocks ... and lame "jokes".
Many still garner great ratings and revenue for the station.
That does not make it any less of a glorified jukebox.
That's an apt description of JACK whether someone likes it ... or not.
>> They want a jukebox. They want the Jack attitude.
That has yet to be proved in the long run.
You may be right, but you and I don't owe crystal balls?
Do you?
Did that come out right?
> They are the listeners who tune to ohter stations, hear a jock, and
> yell at the radio, "shut the f--k up." This come out
> constantly in research of 35-44 non Hispanic whites.
Yeah, no doubt.
I say it ... and worse.
And even worse, I say it to MYSELF
.Again, the question is: How long this will last?
John Rook firmly believes this is a "one-hit wonder".
I wonder about that, but I would not put down bets either way.
> > Anyone with rudimentary programming skills could put JACK
> on
> > the air -- so a lot of stations did.
>
> But the good ones are very intricate, among the most
> complicated in the world in rotations and play scheduling.
> Not easy.
The later paragraph I agree with ... the play scheduling.
But managing an air staff's problems is even tougher.
And even after all my rating and raving about the JACK format, I suggested trying, in essence, a "jukebox" on the air at a suburban station instead of the satellite stuff.
It was a nightmare ... or worse.
A long-time programmer said, "Do you know what you are getting into?"
Of course I didn't.
But I am still intrigued by it.
Never too old to learn.
Re: Otto Mation
> > > Well, one example, many teenagers don't listen to radio
> at
> > > all and prefer their iPods over Marconi's invention.
>
>
> > Actually, teen cume is still in the mid-90's range, same
> as
> > a decade or two decades ago. The only change is that teens
>
> > listen less time, but part of that is because advertisers
> do
> > not want teen audiences, so very few stations target teens
>
> > any more.
>
>
> True, but those teens will grow up.
And, based on the last 5 years of data, will use radio more than at present, as it is easy and free.
>
> Sooner ... rather than later as was my experience.
I ceased being a teen at age 13 when I got my first job.
>
> Absolutely, no way of predicting their listening habits ...
> now.
There is a pretty good indication by tracking 12-17 to 18-24 to 25-34. It looks like the impending doom is more like a light rain. Radio will continue to erode, because there are so many other things to do with limited liesure time. But is is not a cataclysmic death, just a slow decline.
>
> Even Arbitron admitted its own shortcomings recently in
> order to tout its new measurement methods. That was PR.
Still, the share in the People Meter is nearly identical to the share in the diary. The diary actually is a fine measurement tool... the problem with all methods is that most Americans don't want to be bothered with an of them.
>
> Many teens ARE bored by much of radio, and those with the
> money can "program their own station" these days.
Teens, unless they work or go to a demanding school, have time on their hands. This changes when they get adult responsibilities. The only issue is that there are so many things to do with free time, as I noted above.
>
> > Because they found that many listeners were sick of jocks.
>
> Sick of SOME jocks ... and lame "jokes".
>
> Many still garner great ratings and revenue for the station.
But there is a definite segment of the audience that rejects traditional morning shows and jocks who say nothing... people who just wan the music.
>
> >> They want a jukebox. They want the Jack attitude.
>
>
> That has yet to be proved in the long run.
Looks like it is holding into the third and fourth year in Canada, with only minimum erosion from the "oh, wow" days. canada may wear more than the US, too, because of CANCON rules.
>
> You may be right, but you and I don't owe crystal balls?
>
> Do you?
>
> Did that come out right?
Yep. There is no way to predict the future. But we can project current trends, and audience reactions, and there is definitely a need for jockless, clean stations.
.
>
> And even after all my rating and raving about the JACK
> format, I suggested trying, in essence, a "jukebox" on the
> air at a suburban station instead of the satellite stuff.
>
> It was a nightmare ... or worse.
>
> A long-time programmer said, "Do you know what you are
> getting into?"
>
> Of course I didn't.
>
> But I am still intrigued by it.
>
> Never too old to learn.
I do not like it either as it seems so vulnerable to streaming sources with no commercials, satellites and the oft-mentioned iPod on shuffle.
Funny, Jack does not sound like _my_ iPod on shuffle.
>
> > > Well, one example, many teenagers don't listen to radio
> at
> > > all and prefer their iPods over Marconi's invention.
>
>
> > Actually, teen cume is still in the mid-90's range, same
> as
> > a decade or two decades ago. The only change is that teens
>
> > listen less time, but part of that is because advertisers
> do
> > not want teen audiences, so very few stations target teens
>
> > any more.
>
>
> True, but those teens will grow up.
And, based on the last 5 years of data, will use radio more than at present, as it is easy and free.
>
> Sooner ... rather than later as was my experience
.I ceased being a teen at age 13 when I got my first job.
>
> Absolutely, no way of predicting their listening habits ...
> now.
There is a pretty good indication by tracking 12-17 to 18-24 to 25-34. It looks like the impending doom is more like a light rain. Radio will continue to erode, because there are so many other things to do with limited liesure time. But is is not a cataclysmic death, just a slow decline.
>
> Even Arbitron admitted its own shortcomings recently in
> order to tout its new measurement methods. That was PR.
Still, the share in the People Meter is nearly identical to the share in the diary. The diary actually is a fine measurement tool... the problem with all methods is that most Americans don't want to be bothered with an of them.
>
> Many teens ARE bored by much of radio, and those with the
> money can "program their own station" these days.
Teens, unless they work or go to a demanding school, have time on their hands. This changes when they get adult responsibilities. The only issue is that there are so many things to do with free time, as I noted above.
>
> > Because they found that many listeners were sick of jocks.
>
> Sick of SOME jocks ... and lame "jokes".
>
> Many still garner great ratings and revenue for the station.
But there is a definite segment of the audience that rejects traditional morning shows and jocks who say nothing... people who just wan the music.
>
> >> They want a jukebox. They want the Jack attitude.
>
>
> That has yet to be proved in the long run.
Looks like it is holding into the third and fourth year in Canada, with only minimum erosion from the "oh, wow" days. canada may wear more than the US, too, because of CANCON rules.
>
> You may be right, but you and I don't owe crystal balls?
>
> Do you?
>
> Did that come out right?
Yep. There is no way to predict the future. But we can project current trends, and audience reactions, and there is definitely a need for jockless, clean stations.
.
>
> And even after all my rating and raving about the JACK
> format, I suggested trying, in essence, a "jukebox" on the
> air at a suburban station instead of the satellite stuff.
>
> It was a nightmare ... or worse.
>
> A long-time programmer said, "Do you know what you are
> getting into?"
>
> Of course I didn't.
>
> But I am still intrigued by it.
>
> Never too old to learn.
I do not like it either as it seems so vulnerable to streaming sources with no commercials, satellites and the oft-mentioned iPod on shuffle.
Funny, Jack does not sound like _my_ iPod on shuffle.
>
O
OldiesCat
Guest
sour & grapes
Another example of an "I couldn't cut it in big-time radio so I'll criticize the format without jocks".
You guys can bitch all you want about the Jack/Variety Hits format-- but people ARE listening in BIG numbers in most markets where the format is on. You can whine about no jocks and no traffic, etc., but A LOT OF RADIO LISTENERS are loving the format.
Perhaps the reason is the airwaves have been filled by disgruntled personalities more interested in hearing their own voice than actually connecting with listeners on a personal basis. And, maybe the absence of jocks who can't connect is why Jack's early jockless approach is working so well.
>
> Sort of, but of course, as JACK says, "they play what they
> want.", not what YOU or anyone else wants.
>
> Seriously, it is a glorified jukebox.
>
> And a jukebox does not demand a salary ... or benefits ...
> of any kind. It is happy to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a
> week with no time off.
>
> Anyone with rudimentary programming skills could put JACK on
> the air -- so a lot of stations did.
>
> No jocks, no weather, no news, no sports, no information ...
> at all in most markets.
>
> Just a smarmy, wise guy liner station on a automation system.
Another example of an "I couldn't cut it in big-time radio so I'll criticize the format without jocks".
You guys can bitch all you want about the Jack/Variety Hits format-- but people ARE listening in BIG numbers in most markets where the format is on. You can whine about no jocks and no traffic, etc., but A LOT OF RADIO LISTENERS are loving the format.
Perhaps the reason is the airwaves have been filled by disgruntled personalities more interested in hearing their own voice than actually connecting with listeners on a personal basis. And, maybe the absence of jocks who can't connect is why Jack's early jockless approach is working so well.
>
> Sort of, but of course, as JACK says, "they play what they
> want.", not what YOU or anyone else wants
.>
> Seriously, it is a glorified jukebox.
>
> And a jukebox does not demand a salary ... or benefits ...
> of any kind. It is happy to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a
> week with no time off.
>
> Anyone with rudimentary programming skills could put JACK on
> the air -- so a lot of stations did.
>
> No jocks, no weather, no news, no sports, no information ...
> at all in most markets.
>
> Just a smarmy, wise guy liner station on a automation system.
J
Joseph_Gallant
Guest
A top-40/CHR station could get away with a 300-title music library (including the current top 30 or 40 songs) because the curent top hits are played so often.
But for an oldies station, a 300-song playlist is way too small!
IMHO, an oldies station should have a music library of at least 600 to 700 titles. And maybe even more.
And use good music scheduling software to properly rotate the titles in the library. Some titles will be played more often than others.
But for an oldies station, a 300-song playlist is way too small!
IMHO, an oldies station should have a music library of at least 600 to 700 titles. And maybe even more.
And use good music scheduling software to properly rotate the titles in the library. Some titles will be played more often than others.
> A top-40/CHR station could get away with a 300-title music
> library (including the current top 30 or 40 songs) because
> the curent top hits are played so often.
Most CHRs today are in the 80 to 120 song range. All depends on competition and the ability to draw in 18-34 women, which CHRs in some markets can do with slightly larger, dayparted playlists. However, this makes them vulnerable, as we saw int he most recent trend where KIIS in LA dropped about 6 places in the ranking in August (discreet) because a more focused 12-24 player took much of the hit-seeking Hispanic audience with a 50 to 60 song list.
>
> But for an oldies station, a 300-song playlist is way too
> small!
Most are really around 400, give or take. The fact is that if no other songs research positive, that is what you are left with. As OC says, there are spike songs you can use, but the base library is going to be determined by the listeners and if they only agree on 300 songs, that is what you get.
>
> IMHO, an oldies station should have a music library of at
> least 600 to 700 titles. And maybe even more.
There are not that many researching titles.
>
> And use good music scheduling software to properly rotate
> the titles in the library. Some titles will be played more
> often than others.
Any scheduling software will do that, and it is relatively easy to do. The issue is that a 600 song list in most formats will have upwards of 200 stiffs in it. I, for one, do not want to play 1/3 songs my listeners do not like in thier majority.
>
> library (including the current top 30 or 40 songs) because
> the curent top hits are played so often.
Most CHRs today are in the 80 to 120 song range. All depends on competition and the ability to draw in 18-34 women, which CHRs in some markets can do with slightly larger, dayparted playlists. However, this makes them vulnerable, as we saw int he most recent trend where KIIS in LA dropped about 6 places in the ranking in August (discreet) because a more focused 12-24 player took much of the hit-seeking Hispanic audience with a 50 to 60 song list.
>
> But for an oldies station, a 300-song playlist is way too
> small!
Most are really around 400, give or take. The fact is that if no other songs research positive, that is what you are left with. As OC says, there are spike songs you can use, but the base library is going to be determined by the listeners and if they only agree on 300 songs, that is what you get.
>
> IMHO, an oldies station should have a music library of at
> least 600 to 700 titles. And maybe even more.
There are not that many researching titles.
>
> And use good music scheduling software to properly rotate
> the titles in the library. Some titles will be played more
> often than others.
Any scheduling software will do that, and it is relatively easy to do. The issue is that a 600 song list in most formats will have upwards of 200 stiffs in it. I, for one, do not want to play 1/3 songs my listeners do not like in thier majority.
>
M
miamimadman
Guest
Crystal Balls?
> You may be right, but you and I don't owe crystal balls?
>
> Do you?
>
> Did that come out right?
Well no, and yet he bit. You can't 'owe' a Crystal ball. Well
you can owe a crystal ball gratitude for the advice it provides. Best bet is to own your own Ball!<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by miamimadman on 09/26/05 12:51 AM.</FONT></P>
> You may be right, but you and I don't owe crystal balls?
>
> Do you?
>
> Did that come out right?
Well no, and yet he bit. You can't 'owe' a Crystal ball. Well
you can owe a crystal ball gratitude for the advice it provides. Best bet is to own your own Ball!<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by miamimadman on 09/26/05 12:51 AM.</FONT></P>
P
Phantom
Guest
Chill out, Cat ... breathe deeply
> Another example of an "I couldn't cut it in big-time radio
> so I'll criticize the format without jocks".
Can't decide if sensitivity training or anger management would work best for you.
Or neither.
How in the world would you possibly know where I have or haven't worked, Cat?
I don't know any felines ... only bats.
> You guys can bitch all you want about the Jack/Variety Hits
> format-- but people ARE listening in BIG numbers in most
> markets where the format is on. You can whine about no
> jocks and no traffic, etc., but A LOT OF RADIO LISTENERS are
> loving the format.
Trends are down in Dallas although I admit it is too earlier.
Tweak the music, and maybe it will be OK ... and maybe not.
Kurt Johnson, the VP of JACK, first in Dallas, then nationwide, will take the heat if it doesn't work.
If it doesn't, Otto Mation will be out of a job too.
I called it a "glorified jukebox", and I still contend that is an accurate description.
That does not mean that it cannot garner ratings.
The future is unknowable.
If that is what people want, it is fine with me.
And, I simply quoted John Rook for his perspective. It obviously is strictly his opinion.
More obviously, JACK cuts salaries and benefits drastically. If you don't think that was a consideration, you don't know business.
Nothing wrong with that -- just the facts, ma'am. Radio is a business and a stern taskmaster at times.
> Perhaps the reason is the airwaves have been filled by
> disgruntled personalities more interested in hearing their
> own voice than actually connecting with listeners on a
> personal basis. And, maybe the absence of jocks who can't
> connect is why Jack's early jockless approach is working so
> well.
Maybe.
> > Sort of, but of course, as JACK says, "they play what they
>
> > want.", not what YOU or anyone else wants.
> >
> > Seriously, it is a glorified jukebox.
> >
> > And a jukebox does not demand a salary ... or benefits ...
>
> > of any kind. It is happy to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a
>
> > week with no time off.
> >
> > Anyone with rudimentary programming skills could put JACK
> on
> > the air -- so a lot of stations did.
> >
> > No jocks, no weather, no news, no sports, no information
> ...
> > at all in most markets.
> >
> > Just a smarmy, wise guy liner station on a automation
> system.
>
> Another example of an "I couldn't cut it in big-time radio
> so I'll criticize the format without jocks".
Can't decide if sensitivity training or anger management would work best for you.
Or neither.
How in the world would you possibly know where I have or haven't worked, Cat?
I don't know any felines ... only bats.
> You guys can bitch all you want about the Jack/Variety Hits
> format-- but people ARE listening in BIG numbers in most
> markets where the format is on. You can whine about no
> jocks and no traffic, etc., but A LOT OF RADIO LISTENERS are
> loving the format.
Trends are down in Dallas although I admit it is too earlier.
Tweak the music, and maybe it will be OK ... and maybe not.
Kurt Johnson, the VP of JACK, first in Dallas, then nationwide, will take the heat if it doesn't work.
If it doesn't, Otto Mation will be out of a job too.
I called it a "glorified jukebox", and I still contend that is an accurate description.
That does not mean that it cannot garner ratings.
The future is unknowable.
If that is what people want, it is fine with me.
And, I simply quoted John Rook for his perspective. It obviously is strictly his opinion.
More obviously, JACK cuts salaries and benefits drastically. If you don't think that was a consideration, you don't know business.
Nothing wrong with that -- just the facts, ma'am. Radio is a business and a stern taskmaster at times.
> Perhaps the reason is the airwaves have been filled by
> disgruntled personalities more interested in hearing their
> own voice than actually connecting with listeners on a
> personal basis. And, maybe the absence of jocks who can't
> connect is why Jack's early jockless approach is working so
> well.
Maybe.
> > Sort of, but of course, as JACK says, "they play what they
>
> > want.", not what YOU or anyone else wants
.> >
> > Seriously, it is a glorified jukebox.
> >
> > And a jukebox does not demand a salary ... or benefits ...
>
> > of any kind. It is happy to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a
>
> > week with no time off.
> >
> > Anyone with rudimentary programming skills could put JACK
> on
> > the air -- so a lot of stations did.
> >
> > No jocks, no weather, no news, no sports, no information
> ...
> > at all in most markets.
> >
> > Just a smarmy, wise guy liner station on a automation
> system.
>
P
Phantom
Guest
Re: Crystal Balls?
> > You may be right, but you and I don't owe crystal balls?
> >
> > Do you?
> >
> > Did that come out right?
>
> Well no, and yet he bit. You can't 'owe' a Crystal ball.
> Well
> you can owe a crystal ball gratitude for the advice it
> provides. Best bet is to own your own Ball!
"Now available at Dollar General and Family Dollar stores ... supplies limited.
"Hurry for best selection."
> > You may be right, but you and I don't owe crystal balls?
> >
> > Do you?
> >
> > Did that come out right?
>
> Well no, and yet he bit. You can't 'owe' a Crystal ball.
> Well
> you can owe a crystal ball gratitude for the advice it
> provides. Best bet is to own your own Ball!
"Now available at Dollar General and Family Dollar stores ... supplies limited.
"Hurry for best selection."
First off, let me just state that I really don't appreciate your insinuation that I'm not being truthful in my comments. If you have issues with my opinions or they differ than yours and you want to state that, fine, that's what this board is for, sharing of opinions. But don't question my truthfulness.
The radio station in which I performed this task was WIFE radio in the town of Connersville, located in southeastern Indiana, approximately halfway between Indianapolis and Cincinnati. Connersville is a small town, so no, it is not a "rated market". The 52 share I speak of, comes from the yearly report that the company purchases from Arbitron, showing ratings for individual counties. So, yes we did have a 52 in our primary target, which was more than double what it had been (in the low 20's). In addition, we also showed signifigant growth in neighboring counties, as well. So no, it is NOT a fabrication. It did happen.
While I respect your decisions and opinions, I must correct you in that, yes I have read articles in various publications stating stations should only play about 400 songs (and no, I don't have a list of what publications or articles I read these in, as I generally have not kept a list of every article I read, what mag it was in, nor when I read it).
I never suggested playing stiffs. And we didn't play stiffs. Certainly there are songs that did well chart-wise, but for whatever reason, haven't held up well over the years; we generally avoided those. What we did find, though, in listening to our market, was that people were generally tired of hearing heavy rotation songs every couple of hours (I had several comments, BTW, from listeners who switched to us for that reason), and were desiring to hear some classic cuts that were not being played. We simply gave them what they wanted, and it worked.
BTW, I never worked for a "parts house". I DID work for an electronics company and it was BEFORE the PD job.
In reference to your comment about playing what our listeners wanted....that's EXACTLY what we did. Our listeners said they wanted to hear the new music, but also wanted to hear some occasional Cash, Haggard, Owens, Arnold, etc. And we gave it to them. I drilled the customer service idea into my airstaff, getting them to equate the listener with customers, making them realize if we didn't give them what they wanted, they'd go elsewhere, just like they do when they shop.
If you were able to knock off a competitor with your ideals, kudos to you, you did your job well and obviously the other guy didn't, be it with song selection, promotion, whatever the reason was. And no, I didn't work in a market of 17 million, 5 million, or even 500,000, BUT, no matter the size of the station or the market, the name of the game is to bring in as many listeners as possible, and that's what I did; moreso than anyone else who has programmed that station.
And finally, you want to know why I'm not currently in radio? Well, because when the general manager left, the ownership gave the job to a salesperson who had no management experience whatsoever (had only sold radio and newspaper ads all her career), she didn't like the format we were doing despite it's success, she really wanted an oldies station, so she replaced me with one of the weekend guys and had him take out all of the pre 90 music and replaced it with top 40 oldies from the 60's, 70's, 80's. Now, they are playing current and recent gold country mixed with Beatles, Bryan Adams, Starland Vocal Band, etc. In case you are wondering, from what I hear, pretty much the entire community has now tuned out.
> > You know, I find the argument about having only 300-400
> > songs rather amusing, but I've yet to have anyone give me
> a
> > convincing argument that it works. I just don't buy the
> > "people only want to hear so many songs" routine. I was a
>
> > program director until January of this year at a country
> > station, and let me just state that when I took over, our
> > playlist was only about 500 songs all no more than 3-4
> years
> > old. I threw that format out, brought back many of the
> 90's
> > hits, as well as songs from the 60's, 70's, and 80's. All
>
> > told, we were rotating about 2500 songs. Guess what? We
> > more than DOUBLED our audience share. We had a share of
> 52!
>
>
> I can find no station in a rated market with a share over
> 26, and that is from every rated station in every rated
> market in the US in Spring, 2005.
>
> Unless you can give us the calls and market and explain why
> no station appears with a 52 share, I will have to attribute
> this whole story to the realm of fabrication to make a point
> that otherwise could not be made.
>
> A lie is not a good premise for a conclusion, you know.
>
> > According to the so-called experts who say you can only
> > play 400 or so songs (be it country, oldies, AC, etc)and
> be
> > successful, that should never have happened.
>
> No expert has made a decision about playlist length. What we
> do is see how many songs we can find that will test
> positively and not harm our stations by being included in
> the playlist. The length of the list is self-determining, in
> fact.
>
> > I think the
> > real problem is (and I don't believe most programmers in
> > most formats get this)in the presentation. If you know
> what
> > you are doing, you can still get a good rotation of your
> > best testing songs, yet still slip in some good songs that
>
> > help break up the sameness.
>
> Depending on the format, once you get out of the songs that
> are positive, the ones left over are stiffs. In other words,
> no matter how nice the glue you put it together with, the
> songs are stiffs.
>
> I have given several times my best example which is a
> classic rock station in a market of 17 million. We had 450
> songs, a competitor decided to go with 1800 songs. We kept
> our 16 share, the competitor got, at best, a 1.8. A year
> later, out of format. The problem was playing 1350 stiffs,
> and had nothing to do with presentation.
>
> > As a listener, I get extremely
> > annoyed at stations that play the same few songs over and
> > over. For example, the old WENS in Indianapolis was very
> > bad. We used to joke that you could listen to them Monday
>
> > and Tuesday, and you didn't have to listen the rest of the
>
> > week, because you already knew what they would be playing.
>
> > Plus, Q95, the classic rock station, there, was as bad if
> > not worse. Me and some co-workers at an electronics
> company
> > used to joke about how they seemed to play Pink Floyd
> every
> > half hour.
>
> You said you were a PD. Now you work at a parts house?
>
> > People do notice if you're playing the same
> > thing over and over again, and I don't care what anyone
> > says, it's not good radio.
>
> Test some real listeners sometime. If they have 25 favorite
> songs by one artist, you had better play them all, even if
> that means playing one every hour. It is called, "playing
> what th elistener wants." Doing that gets ratings. Playing
> obscure deep cuts does not, as Lee Abrams proved back in the
> early 70's when he killed the free form album rock stations
> with tight lists of hits people actually cared about.
>
> > I'll even go as far as to say
> > that should I get another opportunity to program a
> station,
> > be it oldies or country either one, I HOPE my competition
> is
> > playing only 400 or 500 songs, because in a matter of
> months
> > I will have taken a large amount of their audience away.
> > That's not being egotistical, either, that's simply truth.
>
>
> And I hope I sometime get another competitor playing 2000
> songs. The last one was like shooting fish ina barrel. In
> fact, it was not even challenging, as we knew from call out
> and research that the other station was dead before it was
> on for 24 full hours.
>
> In any case, let us know what your mythical radio station
> was called... and why you are not in radio still if you got
> twice the share of hte highest rated station in the USA
> today. Right.
>
The radio station in which I performed this task was WIFE radio in the town of Connersville, located in southeastern Indiana, approximately halfway between Indianapolis and Cincinnati. Connersville is a small town, so no, it is not a "rated market". The 52 share I speak of, comes from the yearly report that the company purchases from Arbitron, showing ratings for individual counties. So, yes we did have a 52 in our primary target, which was more than double what it had been (in the low 20's). In addition, we also showed signifigant growth in neighboring counties, as well. So no, it is NOT a fabrication. It did happen.
While I respect your decisions and opinions, I must correct you in that, yes I have read articles in various publications stating stations should only play about 400 songs (and no, I don't have a list of what publications or articles I read these in, as I generally have not kept a list of every article I read, what mag it was in, nor when I read it).
I never suggested playing stiffs. And we didn't play stiffs. Certainly there are songs that did well chart-wise, but for whatever reason, haven't held up well over the years; we generally avoided those. What we did find, though, in listening to our market, was that people were generally tired of hearing heavy rotation songs every couple of hours (I had several comments, BTW, from listeners who switched to us for that reason), and were desiring to hear some classic cuts that were not being played. We simply gave them what they wanted, and it worked.
BTW, I never worked for a "parts house". I DID work for an electronics company and it was BEFORE the PD job.
In reference to your comment about playing what our listeners wanted....that's EXACTLY what we did. Our listeners said they wanted to hear the new music, but also wanted to hear some occasional Cash, Haggard, Owens, Arnold, etc. And we gave it to them. I drilled the customer service idea into my airstaff, getting them to equate the listener with customers, making them realize if we didn't give them what they wanted, they'd go elsewhere, just like they do when they shop.
If you were able to knock off a competitor with your ideals, kudos to you, you did your job well and obviously the other guy didn't, be it with song selection, promotion, whatever the reason was. And no, I didn't work in a market of 17 million, 5 million, or even 500,000, BUT, no matter the size of the station or the market, the name of the game is to bring in as many listeners as possible, and that's what I did; moreso than anyone else who has programmed that station.
And finally, you want to know why I'm not currently in radio? Well, because when the general manager left, the ownership gave the job to a salesperson who had no management experience whatsoever (had only sold radio and newspaper ads all her career), she didn't like the format we were doing despite it's success, she really wanted an oldies station, so she replaced me with one of the weekend guys and had him take out all of the pre 90 music and replaced it with top 40 oldies from the 60's, 70's, 80's. Now, they are playing current and recent gold country mixed with Beatles, Bryan Adams, Starland Vocal Band, etc. In case you are wondering, from what I hear, pretty much the entire community has now tuned out.
> > You know, I find the argument about having only 300-400
> > songs rather amusing, but I've yet to have anyone give me
> a
> > convincing argument that it works. I just don't buy the
> > "people only want to hear so many songs" routine. I was a
>
> > program director until January of this year at a country
> > station, and let me just state that when I took over, our
> > playlist was only about 500 songs all no more than 3-4
> years
> > old. I threw that format out, brought back many of the
> 90's
> > hits, as well as songs from the 60's, 70's, and 80's. All
>
> > told, we were rotating about 2500 songs. Guess what? We
> > more than DOUBLED our audience share. We had a share of
> 52!
>
>
> I can find no station in a rated market with a share over
> 26, and that is from every rated station in every rated
> market in the US in Spring, 2005.
>
> Unless you can give us the calls and market and explain why
> no station appears with a 52 share, I will have to attribute
> this whole story to the realm of fabrication to make a point
> that otherwise could not be made.
>
> A lie is not a good premise for a conclusion, you know.
>
> > According to the so-called experts who say you can only
> > play 400 or so songs (be it country, oldies, AC, etc)and
> be
> > successful, that should never have happened.
>
> No expert has made a decision about playlist length. What we
> do is see how many songs we can find that will test
> positively and not harm our stations by being included in
> the playlist. The length of the list is self-determining, in
> fact.
>
> > I think the
> > real problem is (and I don't believe most programmers in
> > most formats get this)in the presentation. If you know
> what
> > you are doing, you can still get a good rotation of your
> > best testing songs, yet still slip in some good songs that
>
> > help break up the sameness.
>
> Depending on the format, once you get out of the songs that
> are positive, the ones left over are stiffs. In other words,
> no matter how nice the glue you put it together with, the
> songs are stiffs.
>
> I have given several times my best example which is a
> classic rock station in a market of 17 million. We had 450
> songs, a competitor decided to go with 1800 songs. We kept
> our 16 share, the competitor got, at best, a 1.8. A year
> later, out of format. The problem was playing 1350 stiffs,
> and had nothing to do with presentation.
>
> > As a listener, I get extremely
> > annoyed at stations that play the same few songs over and
> > over. For example, the old WENS in Indianapolis was very
> > bad. We used to joke that you could listen to them Monday
>
> > and Tuesday, and you didn't have to listen the rest of the
>
> > week, because you already knew what they would be playing.
>
> > Plus, Q95, the classic rock station, there, was as bad if
> > not worse. Me and some co-workers at an electronics
> company
> > used to joke about how they seemed to play Pink Floyd
> every
> > half hour.
>
> You said you were a PD. Now you work at a parts house?
>
> > People do notice if you're playing the same
> > thing over and over again, and I don't care what anyone
> > says, it's not good radio.
>
> Test some real listeners sometime. If they have 25 favorite
> songs by one artist, you had better play them all, even if
> that means playing one every hour. It is called, "playing
> what th elistener wants." Doing that gets ratings. Playing
> obscure deep cuts does not, as Lee Abrams proved back in the
> early 70's when he killed the free form album rock stations
> with tight lists of hits people actually cared about.
>
> > I'll even go as far as to say
> > that should I get another opportunity to program a
> station,
> > be it oldies or country either one, I HOPE my competition
> is
> > playing only 400 or 500 songs, because in a matter of
> months
> > I will have taken a large amount of their audience away.
> > That's not being egotistical, either, that's simply truth.
>
>
> And I hope I sometime get another competitor playing 2000
> songs. The last one was like shooting fish ina barrel. In
> fact, it was not even challenging, as we knew from call out
> and research that the other station was dead before it was
> on for 24 full hours.
>
> In any case, let us know what your mythical radio station
> was called... and why you are not in radio still if you got
> twice the share of hte highest rated station in the USA
> today. Right.
>
Re: Otto Mation
>
> Looks like it is holding into the third and fourth year in
> Canada, with only minimum erosion from the "oh, wow" days.
> canada may wear more than the US, too, because of CANCON
> rules.
> >It occurred to me that Canadians are probably more accustomed to listening to stiffs BECAUSE of the CANCON rules!
>
> Looks like it is holding into the third and fourth year in
> Canada, with only minimum erosion from the "oh, wow" days.
> canada may wear more than the US, too, because of CANCON
> rules.
> >It occurred to me that Canadians are probably more accustomed to listening to stiffs BECAUSE of the CANCON rules!
> The radio station in which I performed this task was WIFE
> radio in the town of Connersville, located in southeastern
> Indiana, approximately halfway between Indianapolis and
> Cincinnati. Connersville is a small town, so no, it is not
> a "rated market".
Coverage area population is less than 70,000. There are only two stations in the county, and both are under common ownership.
> The 52 share I speak of, comes from the
> yearly report that the company purchases from Arbitron,
> showing ratings for individual counties.
The report is basically a "circulation" report. They are not like Arbitron metro reports. I have used them in even smaller markets... the problem being that the sample is often only a few dozen diaries.
> So, yes we did
> have a 52 in our primary target, which was more than double
> what it had been (in the low 20's).
In other words, as the only local FM, folks were forced to listen to the 2,000 stiffs you played as they had little other choice.
> In addition, we also
> showed signifigant growth in neighboring counties, as well.
> So no, it is NOT a fabrication. It did happen.
Most single county non-metro stations have that kind of share in the Arbitron county reports. This is because, with two stations and a few from outside, it is almost logical to get a 50 share. Also, those reports havea margin of error of about 100%.
> While I respect your decisions and opinions, I must correct
> you in that, yes I have read articles in various
> publications stating stations should only play about 400
> songs (and no, I don't have a list of what publications or
> articles I read these in, as I generally have not kept a
> list of every article I read, what mag it was in, nor when I
> read it).
Generally, nearly every format researches within a small range of less than 500 songs down to less than 100. There are few formats and few markets where over 450 or 500 songs test well, which is why one can make a conclusion that any staitons regularly rotating over 500 songs is playing a lot of stiffs, no matter what size the market is.
>
> I never suggested playing stiffs. And we didn't play
> stiffs.
If you played, as you said, over 2000 songs, at least 2/3 were stiffs, meaning half the oeople gave them below a "pure" neutral score, meaning tha tthey did not like the songs and would tune out were most songs of that ilk.
> Certainly there are songs that did well chart-wise,
> but for whatever reason, haven't held up well over the
> years; we generally avoided those.
That is 75% or more of all charting songs.
> What we did find,
> though, in listening to our market, was that people were
> generally tired of hearing heavy rotation songs every couple
> of hours (I had several comments, BTW, from listeners who
> switched to us for that reason), and were desiring to hear
> some classic cuts that were not being played. We simply
> gave them what they wanted, and it worked.
Were you to have had competiton, with a tighter, more focused list sans the stiffs, you would have been blown away in a week. I have seen it happen too many times, and never seen the opposite. I am taking an enormous personal risk in saying it never happens unless the talent and service part of the station is so strong it overcomes the bad music, like WLNG.
>
> BTW, I never worked for a "parts house". I DID work for an
> electronics company and it was BEFORE the PD job.
Point taken. There is nothing wrong with working for a parts supplier. Some of the nicest people I know are the ones I call on for parts and supplies.
>
> In reference to your comment about playing what our
> listeners wanted....that's EXACTLY what we did. Our
> listeners said they wanted to hear the new music, but also
> wanted to hear some occasional Cash, Haggard, Owens, Arnold,
> etc. And we gave it to them.
You tested every one of the songs? Otherwise, you can not say you asked the listeners.
> I drilled the customer
> service idea into my airstaff, getting them to equate the
> listener with customers, making them realize if we didn't
> give them what they wanted, they'd go elsewhere, just like
> they do when they shop.
But you did not truly know what they wanted. You only had generalizations. One of the most common generalizations is, "there should be more community and educational programs." Only problem is that people do not listen to those shows... they just feel good talking about wanting them. I suspect you were victim of the same thing.
>
> If you were able to knock off a competitor with your ideals,
> kudos to you, you did your job well and obviously the other
> guy didn't, be it with song selection, promotion, whatever
> the reason was. And no, I didn't work in a market of 17
> million, 5 million, or even 500,000, BUT, no matter the size
> of the station or the market, the name of the game is to
> bring in as many listeners as possible, and that's what I
> did; moreso than anyone else who has programmed that
> station.
Such is small market radio. I worked a while in Lake city, FL, and it is the same thing. One year, the Arbitron gave us 40% and the next 16% and the next 50% and so on. In markets like that, the real issue is not ratings, as nobody buys ratings in that size town... it is how efficiently you move product out the door, cars off the lot, etc.
>
> And finally, you want to know why I'm not currently in
> radio? Well, because when the general manager left, the
> ownership gave the job to a salesperson who had no
> management experience whatsoever (had only sold radio and
> newspaper ads all her career), she didn't like the format we
> were doing despite it's success, she really wanted an oldies
> station, so she replaced me with one of the weekend guys and
> had him take out all of the pre 90 music and replaced it
> with top 40 oldies from the 60's, 70's, 80's. Now, they are
> playing current and recent gold country mixed with Beatles,
> Bryan Adams, Starland Vocal Band, etc. In case you are
> wondering, from what I hear, pretty much the entire
> community has now tuned out.
You "hear" a lot of things you have no documentation on. You heard people wanted more variety, but you did not find out which songs...
I'm sorry to be so candid, but there is not a snowball's chance in Hell that a playlist of 2500 songs in regular rotation could stand up to any kind of competiton... unless the format is classical.
> radio in the town of Connersville, located in southeastern
> Indiana, approximately halfway between Indianapolis and
> Cincinnati. Connersville is a small town, so no, it is not
> a "rated market".
Coverage area population is less than 70,000. There are only two stations in the county, and both are under common ownership.
> The 52 share I speak of, comes from the
> yearly report that the company purchases from Arbitron,
> showing ratings for individual counties.
The report is basically a "circulation" report. They are not like Arbitron metro reports. I have used them in even smaller markets... the problem being that the sample is often only a few dozen diaries.
> So, yes we did
> have a 52 in our primary target, which was more than double
> what it had been (in the low 20's).
In other words, as the only local FM, folks were forced to listen to the 2,000 stiffs you played as they had little other choice.
> In addition, we also
> showed signifigant growth in neighboring counties, as well.
> So no, it is NOT a fabrication. It did happen.
Most single county non-metro stations have that kind of share in the Arbitron county reports. This is because, with two stations and a few from outside, it is almost logical to get a 50 share. Also, those reports havea margin of error of about 100%.
> While I respect your decisions and opinions, I must correct
> you in that, yes I have read articles in various
> publications stating stations should only play about 400
> songs (and no, I don't have a list of what publications or
> articles I read these in, as I generally have not kept a
> list of every article I read, what mag it was in, nor when I
> read it).
Generally, nearly every format researches within a small range of less than 500 songs down to less than 100. There are few formats and few markets where over 450 or 500 songs test well, which is why one can make a conclusion that any staitons regularly rotating over 500 songs is playing a lot of stiffs, no matter what size the market is.
>
> I never suggested playing stiffs. And we didn't play
> stiffs.
If you played, as you said, over 2000 songs, at least 2/3 were stiffs, meaning half the oeople gave them below a "pure" neutral score, meaning tha tthey did not like the songs and would tune out were most songs of that ilk.
> Certainly there are songs that did well chart-wise,
> but for whatever reason, haven't held up well over the
> years; we generally avoided those.
That is 75% or more of all charting songs.
> What we did find,
> though, in listening to our market, was that people were
> generally tired of hearing heavy rotation songs every couple
> of hours (I had several comments, BTW, from listeners who
> switched to us for that reason), and were desiring to hear
> some classic cuts that were not being played. We simply
> gave them what they wanted, and it worked.
Were you to have had competiton, with a tighter, more focused list sans the stiffs, you would have been blown away in a week. I have seen it happen too many times, and never seen the opposite. I am taking an enormous personal risk in saying it never happens unless the talent and service part of the station is so strong it overcomes the bad music, like WLNG.
>
> BTW, I never worked for a "parts house". I DID work for an
> electronics company and it was BEFORE the PD job.
Point taken. There is nothing wrong with working for a parts supplier. Some of the nicest people I know are the ones I call on for parts and supplies.
>
> In reference to your comment about playing what our
> listeners wanted....that's EXACTLY what we did. Our
> listeners said they wanted to hear the new music, but also
> wanted to hear some occasional Cash, Haggard, Owens, Arnold,
> etc. And we gave it to them.
You tested every one of the songs? Otherwise, you can not say you asked the listeners.
> I drilled the customer
> service idea into my airstaff, getting them to equate the
> listener with customers, making them realize if we didn't
> give them what they wanted, they'd go elsewhere, just like
> they do when they shop.
But you did not truly know what they wanted. You only had generalizations. One of the most common generalizations is, "there should be more community and educational programs." Only problem is that people do not listen to those shows... they just feel good talking about wanting them. I suspect you were victim of the same thing.
>
> If you were able to knock off a competitor with your ideals,
> kudos to you, you did your job well and obviously the other
> guy didn't, be it with song selection, promotion, whatever
> the reason was. And no, I didn't work in a market of 17
> million, 5 million, or even 500,000, BUT, no matter the size
> of the station or the market, the name of the game is to
> bring in as many listeners as possible, and that's what I
> did; moreso than anyone else who has programmed that
> station.
Such is small market radio. I worked a while in Lake city, FL, and it is the same thing. One year, the Arbitron gave us 40% and the next 16% and the next 50% and so on. In markets like that, the real issue is not ratings, as nobody buys ratings in that size town... it is how efficiently you move product out the door, cars off the lot, etc.
>
> And finally, you want to know why I'm not currently in
> radio? Well, because when the general manager left, the
> ownership gave the job to a salesperson who had no
> management experience whatsoever (had only sold radio and
> newspaper ads all her career), she didn't like the format we
> were doing despite it's success, she really wanted an oldies
> station, so she replaced me with one of the weekend guys and
> had him take out all of the pre 90 music and replaced it
> with top 40 oldies from the 60's, 70's, 80's. Now, they are
> playing current and recent gold country mixed with Beatles,
> Bryan Adams, Starland Vocal Band, etc. In case you are
> wondering, from what I hear, pretty much the entire
> community has now tuned out.
You "hear" a lot of things you have no documentation on. You heard people wanted more variety, but you did not find out which songs...
I'm sorry to be so candid, but there is not a snowball's chance in Hell that a playlist of 2500 songs in regular rotation could stand up to any kind of competiton... unless the format is classical.
O
OldiesCat
Guest
denial
Radio could use more passion and less whining. I know I'm passionate- which are you?
What I absolutely do know is that salaries and benefits have nothing to do with the early jockless posture of Jack. Most stations who've flipped are still paying talent they've had under contract (or simple severance) and are not saving money in the process of flipping to Jack.
You can point to a market here and there, but big-picture nationally, Jack is off to a great start. THAT is the fact so many are having a hard time swallowing.
>
> Can't decide if sensitivity training or anger management
> would work best for you. Or neither.
>
> How in the world would you possibly know where I have or
> haven't worked, Cat?
>
> I don't know any felines ... only bats.
>
>
> > You guys can bitch all you want about the Jack/Variety
> Hits format-- but people ARE listening in BIG numbers in most
> > markets where the format is on. You can whine about no
> > jocks and no traffic, etc., but A LOT OF RADIO LISTENERS
> are loving the format.
>
>
> Trends are down in Dallas although I admit it is too
> earlier.
>
> Tweak the music, and maybe it will be OK ... and maybe not.
>
> Kurt Johnson, the VP of JACK, first in Dallas, then
> nationwide, will take the heat if it doesn't work.
>
> If it doesn't, Otto Mation will be out of a job too.
>
> I called it a "glorified jukebox", and I still contend that
> is an accurate description.
>
> That does not mean that it cannot garner ratings.
>
> The future is unknowable.
>
> If that is what people want, it is fine with me.
>
> And, I simply quoted John Rook for his perspective. It
> obviously is strictly his opinion.
>
> More obviously, JACK cuts salaries and benefits drastically.
> If you don't think that was a consideration, you don't know
> business.
Radio could use more passion and less whining. I know I'm passionate- which are you?
What I absolutely do know is that salaries and benefits have nothing to do with the early jockless posture of Jack. Most stations who've flipped are still paying talent they've had under contract (or simple severance) and are not saving money in the process of flipping to Jack.
You can point to a market here and there, but big-picture nationally, Jack is off to a great start. THAT is the fact so many are having a hard time swallowing.
>
> Can't decide if sensitivity training or anger management
> would work best for you. Or neither.
>
> How in the world would you possibly know where I have or
> haven't worked, Cat?
>
> I don't know any felines ... only bats.
>
>
> > You guys can bitch all you want about the Jack/Variety
> Hits format-- but people ARE listening in BIG numbers in most
> > markets where the format is on. You can whine about no
> > jocks and no traffic, etc., but A LOT OF RADIO LISTENERS
> are loving the format.
>
>
> Trends are down in Dallas although I admit it is too
> earlier.
>
> Tweak the music, and maybe it will be OK ... and maybe not.
>
> Kurt Johnson, the VP of JACK, first in Dallas, then
> nationwide, will take the heat if it doesn't work.
>
> If it doesn't, Otto Mation will be out of a job too.
>
> I called it a "glorified jukebox", and I still contend that
> is an accurate description.
>
> That does not mean that it cannot garner ratings.
>
> The future is unknowable.
>
> If that is what people want, it is fine with me.
>
> And, I simply quoted John Rook for his perspective. It
> obviously is strictly his opinion.
>
> More obviously, JACK cuts salaries and benefits drastically.
> If you don't think that was a consideration, you don't know
> business.
WIFE is co-owned with stations in nearby Richmond, IN. The real test would be if WIFE caused any audience erosion to Richmond's WQLK. I'm betting it didn't. The current Bryan Adams mixed with country is pretty ridiculous..I'm surprised Rodgers broadcasting doesn't pull in the reins a little bit..but then again, WIFE is about to move to Cincinnati. <P ID="signature">______________
Greetings from Ohio-where the governor wants everyone to know he's sorry.</P>
Greetings from Ohio-where the governor wants everyone to know he's sorry.</P>
- Status