A Fun Boxing Match

[neutral_observer]

Re: A Personal Perspective

> You can't tell if I am smiling in an email or if I am upset.
> You can't know anything about me through email...all of it
> could get tied up in email to create misunderstandings.

...which is why, much to the disdain and unspoken condescension of my younger friends who all think it's so revolutionary and cool and efficient, I really hate to use it! Why do I want to take ten times as long to use a means of communication which is subject to so much misinterpretation?! Pick up the dang phone! Sixty seconds, and we're all done!


> "Fine, but I've never emailed you."
> Your responses come to my email account so in a sense you
> are emailing me, responding to me.

Oh...well...turn that off or something!



> > But, in believing you know what belongs on the air, what is
> > best, and what "must" be done, isn't that exactly what
> > you're doing?
>
> I asked what we could do to make the situation better.

You're not seeing that therein lies a serious problem -- you're assuming that there's "a situation!" There isn't!

You came in with an already-existing belief...a bias, if you will...and a wrong one, at that.
You heard a number...a number that, in itself, has no meaning...and, using that wrong belief, gave the number a meaning that, in your mind, reinforced that wrong belief.
You brought that wrong belief, now incorrectly "backed" by what is actually a neutral number, to this forum and, whether you wish or have the ability to recognize or admit it now, made a charge against a format and its programmers.

Yes, I know...you're still not seeing that. Spend some time with it.



> If you consider wanting the best music played regardless of
> color, I will consider that a boast. You win.

I don't understand that.



> I'm not full of college terms perhaps that's where we
> differ.

I found my college experience of little value. I regret that now, but I found the lack of connection with the real world maddening. To avoid anything self-identifying, I won't go into detail, but I will say that I did not finish. Books found in the business section of most bookstores and all of the big three on the internet have been of much more value and have no stupid prerequisites that must be endured for no better purpose than lower-level profs having jobs and students that should be doing remedial stuff having a place to start.

Man, that bugged me! I had two majors and discovered a very odd paradox -- the classes that were the easiest and covered the least material absolutely crept at a snail's pace while rather tough classes that covered a very large amount of interesting material did so at the speed of a rocket! Look, you academics...flip that, reverse it, thank you!



> "it's an amazing coincidence!"
>
> Why would it be a coincidence if it is wrong.

Because that's pretty much what a coincidence is! All of the pieces fit perfectly together and lead straight to a particular person, and you then say it's not you. Well, everything leading straight to one station and person that matches each little piece or clue and then supposedly not being that station and person...like I said, it's an amazing coincidence!

So, you're not playing 43 currents? I don't recall you ever really directly denying that.

What do you think about playing 43 currents?



> Go read my posts, you will never see "racism" used.

Well, you will never see a doctor use "sit-on-the-couch-all-day, fat, tub of lard," either! The doctor will describe a "problem" or "situation"...you know, like severe risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, etc...instead.

What he's saying is that the person is...well, you know...just in a more polite and cordial fashion. Which is just what you did. Come on...'fess up! It's okay...we all know it!



> I related the statics that were mentioned at the R&R summit.

Again, the bias that you came in with led to a completely false conslusion. For some reason, which you still won't reveal, you want it to be true. I don't understand that.

To be honest, I don't even know which of the possible meanings the numbers you mentioned could have. I believe you mentioned something like "Christian AC is 95% white and 5% black." Now, that could mean:

-- The stations programming the format have a workforce that is 95% white and 5% black.
-- The stations programming the format have a music library that is 95% white and 5% black.
-- The stations programming the format have an on-air playlist that is 95% white and 5% black.
-- The stations programming the format have an audience that is 95% white and 5% black.

Where are hispanics in this, by the way?

Anyway, just saying that "95/5" thing doesn't tell me anything.

Next, in light of your false conclusion that there's some sort of "situation" indicated by "95/5," let's look at each of those four options for "racism" or "division."

Actually, let's not. We could, but I just don't feel like typing that much. Just let me suggest you compare that to the secular equivalent of whatever it is you're thinking and see what happens...I'd guess "we" are way ahead!




> Please go to read all of whatzthat's posts
> and see if I EVER called anyone a racist...

No, I don't think you ever called anyone a racist, but, by adding a misinterpretation of relatively meaningless research conducted using what many would say is awful methodology to the belief in bias you already held, you came to the false conslusion that there's a "situation." Then, you spoke of "division" and "race reconciliation."

If you didn't accuse the format and its programmers of racism,....well, I just don't know. I'm actually at a loss for words.

 

[whatzthat]

Re: A Personal Perspective

" If you consider wanting the best music played regardless
of color, I will consider that a boast. You win."
I don't understand that."

My answer: I want the best music played regardless.

I've been to college but not for communications.

You wrote:"Because that's pretty much what a coincidence is! All of
> the pieces fit perfectly together and lead straight to a
> particular person, and you then say it's not you. Well,
> everything leading straight to one station and person that
> matches each little piece or clue and then supposedly not
> being that station and person...like I said, it's an amazing
> coincidence! So, you're not playing 43 currents? I don't recall you ever
> really directly denying that. What do you think about playing 43 currents?"


I am not a guy playing 43 currents. I will have to think about the 43 currents, if it is top 40 then 43 currents wouldn't be out of line. I never knew you were asking a question. Who is this I am supposed to be and where am I supposed to come from? and What's My Line?


Ask for a full copy of Paragon's statistics: (I've picked the applicable one from your multiple choice)
" The stations programming the format have an audience that
> is 95% white."
>
Where are hispanics in this, by the way?
I don't know, maybe we should get on that next . I like that music too. They could be included in the 5%. We don't get that many releases that are hispanic or Latino as Salvador calls themselves, Burlap to Cashmere, Jackie Velasquez - a few more.

I would suggest you go back and actually see what I did say. You came in this when it was completely off track.

 

[neutral_observer]

Re: LOL!

> when I was 20 I got lost finding myself...


Huh...I came to Christ at the age of 20....

 

[radioelizabeth]

Re: The Stats.

neutral observer wrote:
"To be honest, I don't even know which of the possible meanings the numbers you mentioned could have. I believe you mentioned something like "Christian AC is 95% white and 5% black." Now, that could mean:
-- The stations programming the format have a workforce that is 95% white and 5% black.
-- The stations programming the format have a music library that is 95% white and 5% black.
-- The stations programming the format have an on-air playlist that is 95% white and 5% black.
-- The stations programming the format have an audience that is 95% white and 5% black."


According to the study, the vast majority of those LISTENING to Christian radio call themselves "white".

The conclusion that was drawn in the thread was that the reason for this is because of the skin color of the artists being played, and the neglect (?) of PDs to select singles by artists that were not "white".

A conclusion that has no real evidence to back it, and a conclusion that doesn't really stand up to the tests of its own theory.

The implication and charge was that more needed to be done to include artists who were "black" in order to reach a broader audience (?) or to be more Christlike (?) or to reach more "black" listeners (?) or to change the statistic (?).

In any case:

The implication that the color of an artist's skin was in direct correlation with the color of the listeners was never substantiated. (Although, I believe one poster did mention culture, lifestyles and preferences...which was a better discussion, in my opinion).

There was further implication that whether PDs realized it or not (above or beneath the surface), songs were being passed on and not given a "fair" shot due to the color of an artist's skin.

A charge that was never substantiated. Not one PD was cited. (Although several ideas were tossed around about some songs that did not receive airplay -but again, no real evidence that race was a factor in their not getting spun).

Another more specific charge was that certain songs were passed on by a station because they didn't sound "white enough". But again, the station was never cited in the thread.


Nowhere in the study did Paragon imply or conclude that color was used to determine spins or selection.

Nowhere in the study did Paragon imply or conclude that PDs were using bias in selecting music.

Paragon did not reveal any statistics on the height, weight, or other physical attributes of those surveyed (to my knowledge). Had they, I imagine we could begin a thread on the reason more people under 5'2" don't listen to Christian radio.

But that wouldn't be nearly as exciting.


e

<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>

 

[whatzthat]

Re: to Neutral Observer

You may tell "E" that she can have the last word, even though she heard the stats like everyone else. Having the last word eventually rocks her world. LOL! .

 

[neutral_observer]

Re: A Personal Perspective

> My answer: I want the best music played regardless.

I think you've seen us all say that that is exactly what happens.



> I will have to think about the 43 currents, if it is top
> 40 then 43 currents wouldn't be out of line.

Well, actually, it would. "Top 40" is a term and idea of the past. More than twenty years ago, when music was better and audiences weren't so totally fragmented, some stations actually could get away with (and even do well) playing 40 currents. For a couple of years, I literally owned every single one of the top 40! Week after week, I'd buy Billboard and make note of the singles I'd need to pick up. Heck, at that time, between or among all the "top 40" stations you'd be able to pick up, you'd actually know the whole top 40 plus another 10 or 15 more! However, from what I was able to discern at the time, most real players played 21-28.

Now, though, things are completely different. There's been a Balkanization of the past few generations. Kids are now broken up into very different "tribes," each with its own culture and acceptable music. Although there may still technically be 40 current songs on a "top 40" chart, it would be very, very difficult to find a single station playing 40 currents -- there just aren't that many real hits available in today's niched-out formats at any given time.

Now, to try 40 currents on a super-niched sub-culture format of a sub-culture format...man, you're just asking for failure. Go for something like 18-21 and, once you find actual hits, hold on to 'em for a good long time!



> Ask for a full copy of Paragon's statistics:

Would you mind sending it to me? I really hate something supposedly being offered for free but then turning out to be available only if you're willing to give up valuable consideration!

(In this case, that being name, location, and email...that ain't free, now, is it?? I had the same frustration about the Third Day song "Cry Out To Jesus" supposedly being offered free but requiring email address and inclusion in database...I acquired it P2P just as a matter of principle. You don't tell people something's "free" and then require something of value, do you??)




> (I've picked the applicable one from your multiple choice)
> > The stations programming the format have an audience that
> > is 95% white."

Okay, now go to work. Show me how that compares to the secular counterpart formats that are anywhere close to AC. Again, at 95/5, I'll bet we're doing pretty well!



> Where are hispanics in this, by the way?
> I don't know, maybe we should get on that next .

A better question is, "why didn't you go there first?"



> I like that music too.

I like salsa and reggaeton. With the latter, I can listen to hip-hop-ish music without having a repulsive culture punching me in the face with every verse and moan! (Despite several years of "A" grades in Spanish, I don't understand a thing in these songs.) And salsa's just cool....ever been to the Coral Gables section of Miami on a night a live salsa band is playing? Very cool... 8)

Anyway, your liking of it is irrelevant! Far too many of your sentences contain "I" and "me!" What matters is what your audience likes!



> They could be included in the 5%.

How generous...especially considering they're ahead 14-12!



> We don't get that many releases that are hispanic or Latino...

Whoa!

Your playlist is determined not by what's released but by what the audience really wants!!

You've used "release" a number of times now as if you believe you have some moral obligation to play what's sent to you. You don't! If anything, you have an obligation to act on behalf of your audience and do what they would do -- reject 80% of it!

 

[neutral_observer]

Re: The Stats.

> According to the study, the vast majority of those LISTENING
> to Christian radio call themselves "white".

That's what I thought it had to be...it's the only thing that would make all the
charges and statements make sense. I wanted him to notice that the lack of
clarity in his statements went all the way back to not clearly understanding and
communicating what the numbers said and didn't say.



> The conclusion that was drawn in the thread was that the
> reason for this is because of the skin color of the artists
> being played, and the neglect (?) of PDs to select singles
> by artists that were not "white".

Just an aside -- he never mentioned George Rowe. I wonder where George's music
fits in his ideas...



> The implication that the color of an artist's skin was in
> direct correlation with the color of the listeners was never
> substantiated. (Although, I believe one poster did mention
> culture, lifestyles and preferences...which was a better
> discussion, in my opinion).

EXACTLY! I kept waiting for it! I kept thinking it surely would
change to that, but it never did! The one making the charge kept right on
actual skin color only the entire time, and that's why I never gave it up! It just kept blowing my mind!

Yes, <u>Mark</u> brought up culture, lifestyle, and preferences, and I meant to
get in there and thank him for steering the whole thing in the right direction.
However, I chose the apparently urgent over the important and felt the need to
keep trying to make corrections in the other thread. Sorry, Mark! You are
smart and wise and absolutely right!



> Nowhere in the study did Paragon imply or conclude that
> color was used to determine spins or selection.
>
> Nowhere in the study did Paragon imply or conclude that PDs
> were using bias in selecting music.

Sure...actually, I don't think anything can really be "concluded" from
these station-website-based mini-perceptuals. I would trust the "one more
question" added to online music tests long before I'd trust these things. I
mean, a listener has to be really unusually motivated and open to initiate and
complete one of these things...

...but that's just me...

I know more and more people are becoming comfortable with this method, but, for
things in the perceptual and strategic vein, I'm going to be reluctant about it
for a long time to come...I just want (need?!) a lot more control and confidence
in the sample and environment, I guess.



> Paragon did not reveal any statistics on the height, weight,
> or other physical attributes of those surveyed (to my
> knowledge). Had they, I imagine we could begin a thread on
> the reason more people under 5'2" don't listen to Christian
> radio.
>
> But that wouldn't be nearly as exciting.

I saw the "wink," but I gotta tell you I disagree....I think it would be an
excellent and much more exciting discussion! It could go into all the areas
that genetics -- the determinants of height -- go into...things like ethnicity
and ancestry, gender, differences found in particular geographic regions...we
could have a blast!

For example, I've noticed that, in the northeast (and, in particular, New York
City),.....oh, never mind!

 

[neutral_observer]

Re: to Neutral Observer

> You may tell "E" that she can have the last word, even
> though she heard the stats like everyone else. Having the
> last word eventually rocks her world. LOL! .


Oh, cut the...childishness! Yes, I noticed the "LOL! ," but I'm just not
buyin' it. It's really ridiculous.

And this just further cements my belief that you never understood the meaning --
or, more accurately, the lack of meaning -- in the stats you cite. Again,
they have no meaning whatsoever in and of themselves! If anything at all about
race, those numbers look really positive! However, your false belief (coming from
a motivation you still won't disclose) led to a really faulty conclusion
when hearing the numbers. Can you not re-evaluate and ditch this belief?

 

[neutral_observer]

Re: A comment (again)

> "No black artists = no black listeners."
>
> I'm not the only one who said that.

I don't care. You said it.



> "Country has black listeners, for example."
>
> I'm rolling on the floor. Please give the stats on that
> because that is unheard of.

Wow. Wow, oh wow.

That's goin' right there alongside your statement above in my brain!

Do you not see the massive amount of racism you just revealed in that statement? I am really, really stunned at the degree of racism and stereotyping you're showing! I think I'm finally starting to understand the undisclosed motivation you have for seeing racism in everything though none exists...it is the filter through which you see everything! I am really, really shocked!

By the way, country having black listeners is by no means unheard of. It's a fact. Yes, country does have black listeners.



> > Yes...and then we get forced to grow up and get out of that
> > belief!
>
> Some don't, some don't realize it's even there.

It really appears you didn't understand me. Please go back and read it again.



> I, like you see Christian music as music,...

Did I say that? I'm not sure I said exactly that.



> ...no color etc.

Here we are back at color. You can't not stop thinking about it and bringing it up!

Color? No! There are, however, really big differences in cultures, backgrounds, lifestyles, music styles, perspectives, paradigms...all of which we, as marketers (that's what we are!), should have some understanding but none of which you seem to appeal to you. Just color. That, I think I can say, is what's really frustrating us all!



> As I was driving on a trip a few years ago, I just was not happy
> with what I was hearing on the Christian stations I was
> tuning in to. I began to ponder it, that is when I realized
> that a lot of the music we were playing was not being played
> elsewhere, and they were of a particular color.

Of course that's what you concluded...you're obsessed! You see "color"...you think "color"...there's nothing else but "color!"

By the way, what are your thoughts on playing "a lot" of music that no one else finds worthy of airing?


> Now mind you I always looked at other playlists, I just didn't
> look at that particular missing link.

Who says there is one, and who says that's it??

Again, you've come to a conclusion about color because you are obsessed with color! Even after so many posts, this just is not occurring to you, is it?

Just for fun, let me suggest a few "missing links" that you didn't come up with but make a lot more sense to me:
-- other people know actual hits a lot better when they hear them and play *those*
-- other people are much more in touch with their audiences and program accordingly
-- other people are much more in touch with their donors and program accordingly
-- the genre does not have the music in sufficient *quality* to create the sound you desire (assuming the sound you desire is the sound you desire because the audience has told you that)
-- the genre does not have the music in sufficient *quantity* to create the sound you desire (assuming the sound you desire is the sound you desire because the audience has told you that)

Any of those make more sense to you?


> I also was in a position where I recommended songs to be added
> and I began to notice that "those" songs were bypassed.

...and apparently falsely concluded that skin color was the reason. Why did you jump to that conclusion? Because of something in you! In all of these different "situations" you see, there's only one thing in common -- you!



> I'm not a racist. I have people who are different color than I am
> working me and didn't realize or care what color they were, I still
> don't. I do care if they are getting unfair treatment, that goes for
> anyone.

How about people who are wanting to hear their favorite hit songs but keep getting force-fed 40+ non-hit currents just because you "feel" they "should" be aired because they've been "released" and/or feature the colors you "feel" "should" be on the air!

Man, that right there has got to be the most unfair treatment I've heard about in a long time!



> I never in a
> million years would have thought what I wrote quoting
> Paragon's statistics would have created so much hostility.

Simply quoting them would have resulted in nothing, for we know they have no meaning beyond what they say. You, however, went way beyond quoting numbers to drawing a conclusion that was in no way indicated or supported by the numbers and then indicting a format and its programmers for that false conclusion.



> Perhaps I'm a little ahead of dealing with this stuff
> because of my friends who are open about what they go
> through. That's the only conclusion I can come to.

And that conclusion, too, IMHO, just cannot be supported by the evidence. I'm sorry, but, to me, you seem to be way behind.

 

[The RadioFan]

Re: A good point worth remembering by all of us

> We all have our theories on what would make great compelling
> radio. Some focus on what would "sell" well, others focus
> on "market share", while others focus on what would bless
> the listeners, still others on the "art" of radio, etc.
>
> Radio E said it well, the Lord will use it all. He's given
> each one of us various talents to use in your daily walk
> with him. Many of us here are blessed to use some of our
> giftings in radio, be it on air or behind the scenes. Some
> of us who do on air work, use our giftings on Christian
> formated stations, others of us (myself included) use our
> giftings on "secular formated stations". Either way, the
> Lord uses it all for his glory and purposes if we are doing
> our work unto the Lord (see Colossians 3:22-24). We worship
> the same Christ, but do it in different styles. What would
> touch my spirit and bring me to the heights of worship might
> not bless your spirit as the Lord didn't make us all
> vanilla. Some like hymns with organ and choir, others like
> a jammin' praise band, some would like Gregorian Chant, all
> of these honor Our Lord, but reach different people. The
> Lord uses all, same in radio. I've not heard the radio work
> of any here, but believe that each one here puts their heart
> and soul into it for his glory. Again, as Radio e said the
> Lord uses it all. We all as followers of the Living Christ
> are on the same team. Each one of us need to be faithful to
> seek out the Lord's will and to obey. What God's will for
> an individual may be different for each one of us as each
> one of us has different giftings and God has different work
> for each one of us, etc, that's one reason we shouldn't
> condemn each others vision for radio. Let's all be faithful
> in our work and let God use our labors in radio for his
> glory and goals of reaching the lost for Christ whether we
> are part of a national radio show that reaches millions or
> with a small low powered station out in "podunk" somewhere
> that only reaches a few thousand, God will use it all for
> his glory. Happy New Year.

Excellent points from MikefromDelaware! We need to be concerned that our life is in line with the will of the Father and that we are faithful to Him. We need to be focus on knowing His will and following Him diligently. He needs to be the focus in all that we do. I keep reading from other posters that each station has it's own calling. If this is true, then there is no room for slamming another programmer because, in doing so, means you are basically slamming the will of God. One programmer may be led to program a station in one fashion and the other may be led to program a station in a total different manner. The calling is between God and the person He is calling. Therefore, no human being has the authority to intervene what God is calling a particular person to do. The slamming exists when we take eyes off from glorifying our Creator and that only causes divisions which causes a hindrance of growth in the body of the Messiah. Are we truly the disciples of the Messiah? He knows we are His disciples by the way we love one another. It is time to examine ourselves if we are expected to be a part of His body which is without blemishes and wrinkles.