60's and 70's Classic Hits with some 50's?

[oldies76]

DavidEduardo If I test 300 of a particular station's listeners, and don't find an oldies freak like you, that means your ilk is less than a half of a percent of the listners to the station... a group that can't be served or satisfied and thus worthy of being ignored at the risk of otherwise driving off the other 99.7% of the station listeners who don't give a rat's patootie about those awful and obscure songs.

So YOU are assuming that these 99.7% (thousands of listeners, or more) agree exactly to what these 300 random testers chose for that station? And therefore, have to be stuck listening to the same 400 songs over an over?

Sounds like a bit of a flawed and unaccurate system. So all of the L.A. basin, millions of potential listeners to KRTH, have to rely on the opinions of 300. RIGHT This may be today's methods, but it's not accurate.

DavidEduardo As I suspected, you never worked at a station that had to make a profit by getting ratings.

So what! It's still radio.

 

[davideduardo]

lets' give it up guys..eddy obviously has the radio playbook 101 and is using it verbatim..anything that diviates from that is sacriledge..breaks the rules etc.

First, there is no playbook. What there is consists of experience.

You know that definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome? Well, when we see certain things that never, ever work in radio, we kind of decide that it makes no sense to do those things again.

There really are no rules, so there is nothing to break. There simply are things that work, and those that don't. The source for this knowledge is the listener, though. We know how much what we are doing is liked via Arbitron ratings and, in many cases, our own internal tracking of listening and usage. We have regular music tests to determine how to manage our music plays. And we have perceptual research to determine how liteners see our stations.

Give all this data to a good PD and every station will be unique, out of the box and full of good songs.

i don't think anyone here is a freak of any sort,

Oh, yes they are. Self included. Most people don't spend a second of their time thinking about the "how" of radio. It's a nice, convenient way to get music and entertainment and other good stuff... for free. It's the same thing as the fact I don't wonder about which bumper got put on my car first at the factory... I want the car as a ride, not as a subject for analysis. Very few people deisigning their own cars, and very few people spend time wondering how radio stations work.

however there seems to be just as many that agree with myself and others that agree with you

That's here in a radio discussion group. In the real world (not the Alan Jackson song) there are very few who care: if they don't like a station, they don't listen.

The average person listens to three stations in each week, often at fairly comparable levels. That means that an oldies station is essentially NEVER the only station a person listens to... and I checked a dozen markets just to be certain. They also listen to country or AC or news or talk or classic rock or adult hits or regional Mexican or Spanish AC or Spanish oldies, depending on the market. That's how listeners get variety... they listen to different stations for different moods or needs.

keep your little format ed, and your testing as it obviously is a sacred cow for you...

Testing is used by every station that can afford it. It's not sacred, just a tool that helps to give listeners what they want and one of many such tools.

most of the rest prefer a much wider variety...even Honey every eight days..

No, actually they do not. It's you who are arrogant in thinking that you know what listeners want based on only the criteria of your own and bizarrely broad likes in a single genre.

 

[davideduardo]

So YOU are assuming that these 99.7% (thousands of listeners, or more) agree exactly to what these 300 random testers chose for that station? And therefore, have to be stuck listening to the same 400 songs over an over?

I've now gone over "replication" three prior times. Here it is again. If you test 100 persons (the norm for most music tests) and then test another 100 pérsons, equally recruited, and get the same results, there is no need to have more than 100.

We can also do a replication study by testing, let's say, 500 persons. then we pull a random 100 and another random 100... if they match on results, we know 100 works. We might try random sets of 75... and if we find sets of 75 also work, then we are assured that 100 persons is actually overkill, which is the truth.

Folks in research have done this on many occasions, and that is why the standard for a music test is 100 persons. That is not overly expensive, and is deadly precise in determining what songs to play and not to play, and how often to play the ones that pass.

Sounds like a bit of a flawed and unaccurate system.

It probably does to you, who has never programmed a station or worked in a commercial station ever. The fact is, it works time and again.

So all of the L.A. basin, millions of potential listeners to KRTH, have to rely on the opinions of 300. RIGHT This may be today's methods, but it's not accurate.

It's deadly accurate, and proven so over the last nearly 40 years. And each test is with about 100 persons, not 300 as a 300 person test would cost around $100 thosuand dollars each, multiple times a year.

Did you ever even bother to follow the link I gave you that shows how music tests are done?

 

[landtuna]

The average person listens to three stations in each week, often at fairly comparable levels. That means that an oldies station is essentially NEVER the only station a person listens to... and I checked a dozen markets just to be certain.

Guess I'm not 'average'. Nor are the other 3 radio listeners who inhabit my house. I listen to KOOL exclusively. 33-YO son listens to KUPD, again exclusively. 19-YO daughter listens to 104.7 exclusively. 40-something wifey listens to K-love, again exclusively.

I remember the old days when there were several Top-40 stations to pick from in larger markets. As soon as a commercial came on, or a song you didn't like, you punched the button and switched to one of the others. From what I can see today that no longer happens.

 

[davideduardo]

I remember the old days when there were several Top-40 stations to pick from in larger markets. As soon as a commercial came on, or a song you didn't like, you punched the button and switched to one of the others. From what I can see today that no longer happens.

If you look at Arbitron diaries, or even just the shared listening in Maximiser, you find that nearly every listener has multiple station choices, and every station shares with nearly every station in the market in different proportions.

The best view is obtained by going to Columbia, MD, to Arbitron to see the actual diaries. There you realize that very, very few diaries have single stations. In fact, the bulk of single station diaries come from listeners to religious stations who do not like more secular stations or whose religion discourages such listening. Outside of these listeners, younger listeners have more stations... typically four to five, and older listeners have about three.

The most important thing is that listeners seldom listen to two or more stations in the same format... they obviously listen to different stations for different moods, occasions or needs.

For example, the stations that KOOL listeners went to after tuning to KOOL in fall of 2007 are, in order of shared percentage, KESZ (20%), KSLX, KPKX, KYOT, KNIX, KMLE, KDKB, KTAR FM (10%) KTAR AM KMXP, KFYI, KJZZ, KZON, KZZP (now we are down to 5%) , KUPD, KAJM, KOY, KKFR, KMVA, KBAQ, KEDJ and KSWG. There are more, but they represent 2% or less.

 

[oldies76]

DavidEduardo I've now gone over "replication" three prior times. Here it is again. If you test 100 persons (the norm for most music tests) and then test another 100 pérsons, equally recruited, and get the same results, there is no need to have more than 100.

We can also do a replication study by testing, let's say, 500 persons. then we pull a random 100 and another random 100... if they match on results, we know 100 works. We might try random sets of 75... and if we find sets of 75 also work, then we are assured that 100 persons is actually overkill, which is the truth.

Fine then, do really believe that testing random people in sets of 100, 2-4 times (replication), will account for the likes and dislikes of the remaining 499,600 (assuming 500,000 people out of a total of 18 million in the Greater L.A. Basin will tune in to KRTH on any given day). 400 out of 500,000 is only .0008% (a very miniscule number). What about the other 99.992% of that potential listener base?

Now most of that 99.9% may side with the songs chosen by these 100 - 400 testing, but that leaves out quite a few listeners that very likely have different classic hits tastes. And too, some of the remaining 99.9% are folks over 55.

Do any folks over 55, take these music tests?

Sorry, I just do not see the logic here.

Random sampling may be a good way of testing new products (there are not 3000 types of car tires or sodas), but here you are dealing with a few thousand song titles from the rock era and only 400-500 of the same are ever aired.

I could understand it were a smaller market, with just a few thousand people. The percentages would justify it better, but you are dealing with big cities with pops of over 500,000 to millions of listeners.

If these 400 songs were mixed with another 400 and so forth...day after day, you'd have a playlist that would be full & representative of this period.

Do you get the picture I am trying to paint here? It may be wrong to you, but do you see the reasoning?

 

[deltas69]

totaly unrelated question..can anyone trell me what demo group micholob beer would run a commercial for ? obviously over 21..but what age group..really..not a trick question.. ???

 

[oldies76]

DavidEduardo It's deadly accurate, and proven so over the last nearly 40 years.

One final theory (for what it's worth): If you say testing has been accurate over the last 40 years, then why did KRTH have a very liberal playlist with huge themed weekends back in the 1980's and not today?

These extras that they played then are those "stiffs" you call now, in today's classic hits stations.

 

[davideduardo]

DavidEduardo It's deadly accurate, and proven so over the last nearly 40 years.

One final theory (for what it's worth): If you say testing has been accurate over the last 40 years, then why did KRTH have a very liberal playlist with huge themed weekends back in the 1980's and not today?

These extras that they played then are those "stiffs" you call now, in today's classic hits stations.

I suspect that as time has gone by, oldies songs that are still liked shrink in number. Back in the 70's, when music testing was just getting started, Beatles and Stones songs tested very broadly... today they don't test. That's just one example. Also keep in mind that the sares and appeal of oldies has diminished, as folks move on in their life and either stop using oldies stations or use them less.

 

[davideduardo]

totaly unrelated question..can anyone trell me what demo group micholob beer would run a commercial for ? obviously over 21..but what age group..really..not a trick question.. ???

Premiums usually seek men 35-44 or 35-54, although ones like Corona will be a bit younger.

 

[davideduardo]

Fine then, do really believe that testing random people in sets of 100, 2-4 times (replication), will account for the likes and dislikes of the remaining 499,600 (assuming 500,000 people out of a total of 18 million in the Greater L.A. Basin will tune in to KRTH on any given day). 400 out of 500,000 is only .0008% (a very miniscule number). What about the other 99.992% of that potential listener base?

As I said, you can test 100, 1000 or 10000 and the results will be stastically the same, So, cost dictates using the smallest number that yields accurate results always.

Remember, a political poll of 1000 persons can predict within 3% the US national elections. 3% is a very small margin of error in a music test and will not change playable and unplayable songs at all. So 100 persons in a single market for a very specific kind of station is actually too many!

Now most of that 99.9% may side with the songs chosen by these 100 - 400 testing,

Nobody tests 400 persons. That would cost about $125 thousand per test!!!!!!! Impossible.

but that leaves out quite a few listeners that very likely have different classic hits tastes.

And to serve them, we would disserve the 99.5% we want

And too, some of the remaining 99.9% are folks over 55.

Yes, so we don't care at all.

Do any folks over 55, take these music tests?

No. No station wants 55+ listeners.

[/quote]Do you get the picture I am trying to paint here? It may be wrong to you, but do you see the reasoning?
[/quote]

No. It seems crazy to me. If only a few hundred songs test in a sample that is replicable, then there are only a few hundred songs you can play. The size of the market has nothing to do with it.

 

[davideduardo]

Fine then, do really believe that testing random people in sets of 100, 2-4 times (replication), will account for the likes and dislikes of the remaining 499,600 (assuming 500,000 people out of a total of 18 million in the Greater L.A. Basin will tune in to KRTH on any given day). 400 out of 500,000 is only .0008% (a very miniscule number). What about the other 99.992% of that potential listener base?

I almost missed this one. The 12+ population (Arbitron rates 12+ only) of the LA radio market is 10.5 million. The population of the LA Basin is, using a mapping program, about 5 million (the basin is only the area on the flat floor below the mountains around downtown LA to about Buena Park and up to Hollywood and across to the Baldwin Hills mountans and up to about Montebello.

Replication is a way of proving minimum sample size. It is not used to do regular testing, just to prove, for example, that the ideal music test sample is about 100 persons or less. It's very expensive to do, and you find that you only have to do it a couple of times to understand where the cost vs. benefits sweet spot lies.

In general, it's easy to find that a realtively economical sample will do everything a huge sample will do.

 

[deltas69]

Premiums usually seek men 35-44 or 35-54...ok a 40 year old today would have been about 8 in 1973..was he listening to three dog night then ? a 54 year old would more likely be listening to them in '73..point is this..micholob is using "SHAMBALA" by three dog night in their commercials (#3 1973)..obviously they seem to be going for that older demo by using that music..they better hurry though..one more year and no one over 55 will recognize the song,from what we're led to believe here..guess no one over 55 drinks beer either..shambala is NOT one of the usual suspects on the highly touted and much maligned skimpy playlist..yet here is a rather large corporation using a song probably tested as "unknown" by the music intelligensia ..somebody had better get anheuser busch on the phone and explain to them using tested and proven unknown music will not grab us freaks of music nature...

 

[oldies76]

oldies76 And too, some of the remaining 99.9% are folks over 55.

David Eduardo Yes, so we don't care at all.

oldies76 Do any folks over 55, take these music tests?

DavidEduardo No. No station wants 55+ listeners.

So, in reality the real losers here are the people over 55. They were alive when Rock and Roll began and progressed thru the 60's and 70's. These are the folks with more knowledge about oldies & classic hits, than the listeners tuning into classic hits stations today. Geez, no wonder some of the 55+ folks are bored with today's classics hits radio, Maybe, these are the ones really complaining about the lack of selection?

Maybe someday, just someday their voices will be heard. If you think about it (personally), it's sad.

But, in reality this whole concept of expanding playlists and hearing beautiful and memorable music is just a memory, brought to you by a "freak", "dreamer" and by one who is "ignorant". Oh well!!

Thank God for WCBS!

Catch you on another thread.....sayonara.

 

[Tom Wells]

The losers are anyone whose brain thinks past 300 songs.

These are the engaged listeners of all ages who can hear something they're not familiar with and enjoy it.

The problem with the songs which test well is that they're often not the hippest, coolest songs but the blandest.
Many exceptions of course, but then they're the "rock" oldies we're burned out on.

So oldies must be burned out rockers or pop schmaltz. Hmmm.

 

[oldies76]

Tom Wells These are the engaged listeners of all ages who can hear something they're not familiar with and enjoy it.

You're right Tom...too bad other posters don't think so.

 

[davideduardo]

So, in reality the real losers here are the people over 55. They were alive when Rock and Roll began and progressed thru the 60's and 70's. These are the folks with more knowledge about oldies & classic hits, than the listeners tuning into classic hits stations today. Geez, no wonder some of the 55+ folks are bored with today's classics hits radio, Maybe, these are the ones really complaining about the lack of selection?

As I have said about 6 times before in this thread (proving you only read selectively), in larger markets where profitabiity depends on getting ad agency dollars, there is no way to serve 55+ because almost without exception, agencies are instructed by clients not to buy 55+. So there is little money at all for 55+, and a station can not exist on that audience group.

Oldies stations became classic hits because classic hits is mostly 35-54, while oldies is 45-64. 45-64 is not salable.

 

[davideduardo]

Premiums usually seek men 35-44 or 35-54...ok a 40 year old today would have been about 8 in 1973..was he listening to three dog night then ? a 54 year old would more likely be listening to them in '73..point is this..micholob is using "SHAMBALA" by three dog night in their commercials (#3 1973)..obviously they seem to be going for that older demo by using that music..they better hurry though..one more year and no one over 55 will recognize the song,from what we're led to believe here..guess no one over 55 drinks beer either..shambala is NOT one of the usual suspects on the highly touted and much maligned skimpy playlist..yet here is a rather large corporation using a song probably tested as "unknown" by the music intelligensia ..somebody had better get anheuser busch on the phone and explain to them using tested and proven unknown music will not grab us freaks of music nature...

The reason why lots of not-played-today songs from the late 60's and 70's are being used is that they can be had cheap, and the melodies, while familiar to some, are catchy and melodic.

Beers target men 21 to 44 for most brands, and 25-54 or 35-54 for permiums. They never target women, and never target over 55 because about 85% of all beer sales are to men 21-44. As in bank robbing, go where the money is.

The most famous use of a song from that era is Build Me Up Buttercup from the 25-44 chick flick There's Something About Mary. The movie was not aimed at anyone who would know the song... as 45+ are very infrequent movie goers... but the song is cute and just what the movie wanted. It did not matter if nobody would know it in the movies demo.

 

[oldies76]

DavidEduardo As I have said about 6 times before in this thread (proving you only read selectively)

I have read every single post in this thread, including yours. QUIT being so negative to other posters. You can tell me 200 times, and it will not change my opinion.

The issue with radio serving 55+ is very valid and needs to be addressed. YOU may disagree with it, but others don't.

Why are you so against radio serving 55+ anyways? I'm nowhere near this age, but others at age 40+ have told me the same thing....that oldies stations are too repetitive and do not include some of their favorites songs.

 

[davideduardo]

I have read every single post in this thread, including yours. QUIT being so negative to other posters. You can tell me 200 times, and it will not change my opinion.

My point is that you tend to diagree with things that have been thoroughly proven, like aspects of the science of statistics.

The issue with radio serving 55+ is very valid and needs to be addressed. YOU may disagree with it, but others don't.

There is no "issue" to address. Agency accounts specify "no 55+" by way of specifying demos in the 18 to 54 spread and not 55+, and without that revenue, larger market stations can not be profitable. So stations don't program for 55 and over. It's the same reason why stations don't program for teens, either.

Why are you so against radio serving 55+ anyways?

You are not listening. THERE IS NO REVENUE unless your station is in a small or suburban market. Ad agency accounts, for very strong reasons based on ROI, don't go after 55+. So there is no ad revenue if you program to 55+.