> >
> > The average listener actually wants "predictable". They
> > want the emotional reassurance that their favorite station
> > will consistently give them the same music they are
> > accustomed to.
> >
> I find that statement completely inaccurate.
The statment would better have been, "listeners want, above all, familiarity." In addion, they want the station they tune to to meet thier expdectations... no surprises and a variety of the music they know and like.
> As an average
> listener, and having never worked in radio, the last thing I
> want to hear from any broadcast is the same 50 songs over
> and over again.
Even a CHR does not play 50 songs. I know you used that number to emphasie what you see as short lists, the fact is that listeners do nto want long lists. They want lists of good songs they like. Seldom do these go over 100 songs in youth staitons, and 300 songs in 25+ adult stations.
> I would love to hear one station, any
> station in this market, step out of the box and go free form
> with their playlist.
Most of us who have been in programming for a while have wanted to do this. the result was always a "learning exerience" and we were lucky if it did not cost us our jobs. It does not work. Ever.
> The above statement is exactly why
> terrestrial radio is losing listeners by the droves and are
> "programming" their own music with iPods and Mp3's.
Radio's cume in 18-54 is within about 2% of its 40-year high in Arbitron, so the idea that listeners are leaving in droves is inaccurate. In fact, surveys show that the average iPod user has about 300 favorite songs on it... not thousands.
> Those
> that are in radio, forgot what it's like to be on the other
> side of the broadcast, and think they know what everyone
> wants to hear.
This is why we spend, at larger market stations, hundreds of thosuands of dollars a year in proprietary music and perceptual research because we are not listeners. We design a product for listeners based on their input.
> If someone would take the time to actually
> listen to our feedback, radio would not be as outdated, and
> overlooked as it is today.
You are an exception. In research, we look for the range where 80% to 90% of potential listeners fall, and exclude those that are at the "radical" fringe because they do not represent the mainstream and, to win them, we would lose the core.
> Congratulations. This is one of
> the reasons that the top station in any given market used to
> pull a 10+ share, but now most have trouble breaking a 6 to
> earn the top spot.
The reason for that is not what you say. However the shares are divided does not indicate more or less listening. It indicates how individual staitons are divided.
The reasons are that the lower rated stations are now learning how to take and hold a smaller hill, and increasing share, making all staitons closer in rank. In LA, for example, we had a 10 share around 1990. But there were many FMs with 1 to 2 shares. Now, the shares on the low rated staitons are 2 to 3, and the top ones are 3 to th low 4's. There are still 100 shares, redistributed among more, and better, stations.
Share is a percentage of raido listeners. There are always 100 shares, whether there are 10 people or 10 million listening. More competitive secondary stations have redistributed the same 100 shares.
Overall, listening is still at the same general level in sales demos it has been for 4 decades.
>