A question about the audience

[oldies76]

I also believe that everyone likes variety and dislikes repetition. Obviously, radio stations feel differently.

The people in radio don't play songs repeatedly for themselves. They play them repeatedly because the ratings show that repetition works. The smaller the playlist, the bigger the audience. We have more than 60 years of history on that.

We don't need to hear "Brown Eyed Girl" 5 times in a week, or once in every 19 days...once a month or two is fine. Every song played will repeat eventually, we're mentioning the frequency of repetition.

And listeners do complain or tuneout, that's a fact. They just don't get the chance to voice their opinion in music tests, or to station management.

And the word is getting around.....we've mentioned numerous small market stations here with large playlists and it's catching on. People like change, not redundancies. And people are listening to them or they would not be broadcasting.

 

[michael hagerty]

The smaller the playlist, the bigger the audience.

If this is true, then why don't they just go for it, narrow the playlist to 100 songs? Or 50? Or 10? or just 1? Through "research", find the most popular song in history, and just play that 24/7.

My answer to your earlier post outlines how people in the desired demographic actually use the medium, what they hear and how often.

Right now, successful Classic Hits stations are working with roughly 800 songs. And the balance is right for the intended audience.

The fact of the matter is that severely tight playlists like you facetiously suggest have been used...and have worked.

WABC, New York and KCBQ, San Diego dominated their markets with 22 song current playlists when their competitors were running 30 or 40.

Gerry Cagle did exceptionally well at KFRC, San Francisco from 1980-1983 with 30 currents, 50 currents and 100 goldens.

But today, for adults in their 40s, 800 seems to work very well.

 

[michael hagerty]

I also believe that everyone likes variety and dislikes repetition. Obviously, radio stations feel differently.

The people in radio don't play songs repeatedly for themselves. They play them repeatedly because the ratings show that repetition works. The smaller the playlist, the bigger the audience. We have more than 60 years of history on that.

We don't need to hear "Brown Eyed Girl" 5 times in a week, or once in every 19 days...once a month or two is fine. Every song played will repeat eventually, we're mentioning the frequency of repetition.

And if you listen the way the majority of the desired demographic does, you won't hear any song ("Brown Eyed Girl" included) 5 times in a week. At most, you'd hear the most-played songs (which "Brown Eyed Girl" is no longer) every 19 days. And to the typical listener, there's no perceptible difference between 19 days and a month. They're not keeping track. But two months without hearing a favorite song...that's begging listener dissatisfaction.

And listeners do complain or tuneout, that's a fact. They just don't get the chance to voice their opinion in music tests, or to station management.

The remarkably stable numbers in the demo for well-researched Classic Hits stations suggests otherwise.

And the word is getting around.....we've mentioned numerous small market stations here with large playlists and it's catching on.

People like change, not redundancies. And people are listening to them or they would not be broadcasting.

You do know that just because a station is able to fire up the transmitter doesn't mean it is successful or profitable, right?

 

[SolidGold16]

My answer to your earlier post outlines how people in the desired demographic actually use the medium, what they hear and how often.

Right now, successful Classic Hits stations are working with roughly 800 songs. And the balance is right for the intended audience.

The fact of the matter is that severely tight playlists like you facetiously suggest have been used...and have worked.

WABC, New York and KCBQ, San Diego dominated their markets with 22 song current playlists when their competitors were running 30 or 40.

Gerry Cagle did exceptionally well at KFRC, San Francisco from 1980-1983 with 30 currents, 50 currents and 100 goldens.

I might be wrong, so I won't say for sure on this - but it doesn't seem to me that KOLA has an 800 song playlist. I heard the same songs pretty much all day long, with very little variety. Or, possibly, they don't fit with your definition of a "successful" Classic Hits station?

As for the stations like WABC, etc. What year are we talking about? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, top 40 was in its heyday. That's what people wanted to hear. That won't work as well today. The example you use of KFRC was, according to you, only a three year stint. What happened? Why did it stop working? What changed? Yep, I bet people got tired of the repetition. Tune-out.

 

[oldies76]

The complaint of repetition tends to come up in two categories: Someone who hears a song, regardless of how infrequently, that they don't like ("they're playing that AGAIN?")

Disagree. This in fact would apply more to CHR music than to a classic hit that is featured once in a blue moon (in other words, a lost hit).

In CHR, if currents get those sorts of responses, eventually it'll be off the rotation. But every song is subject to that. Look at "Harlem Shake" #1 for five weeks on the Hot 100, but many people dislike that song, even while it somehow made #1. (Probably You Tube and iTunes streaming points, if anything else), but that's another matter.

 

[oldies76]

You do know that just because a station is able to fire up the transmitter doesn't mean it is successful or profitable, right?

Well of course, at least they are trying. Give them a chance.

 

[SolidGold16]

You do know that just because a station is able to fire up the transmitter doesn't mean it is successful or profitable, right?

Conversely, it doesn't mean that they can't be profitable. Sometimes it pays to be different. It would be a pretty boring world if everyone felt the same way about everything.

 

[michael hagerty]

My answer to your earlier post outlines how people in the desired demographic actually use the medium, what they hear and how often.

Right now, successful Classic Hits stations are working with roughly 800 songs. And the balance is right for the intended audience.

The fact of the matter is that severely tight playlists like you facetiously suggest have been used...and have worked.

WABC, New York and KCBQ, San Diego dominated their markets with 22 song current playlists when their competitors were running 30 or 40.

Gerry Cagle did exceptionally well at KFRC, San Francisco from 1980-1983 with 30 currents, 50 currents and 100 goldens.

I might be wrong, so I won't say for sure on this - but it doesn't seem to me that KOLA has an 800 song playlist. I heard the same songs pretty much all day long, with very little variety. Or, possibly, they don't fit with your definition of a "successful" Classic Hits station?

As for the stations like WABC, etc. What year are we talking about? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, top 40 was in its heyday. That's what people wanted to hear. That won't work as well today. The example you use of KFRC was, according to you, only a three year stint. What happened? Why did it stop working? What changed? Yep, I bet people got tired of the repetition. Tune-out.

If you're listening to KOLA all day long, you're not listening the way the typical listener does.

Rick Sklar started doing 22-25 song playlists at WABC as early as 1967 and continued them until 1982 and the flip to talk. KCBQ ran 22 from 1971-1975. And while, yes, it was Top 40, they beat competitors with 30 and 40 song playlists.

At KFRC, Gerry Cagle was replaced by a PD who thought he needed to add variety. In a year, the station went from #3 to out of the Top 10. In a year and a half, the new PD was gone. In two and a half, KFRC changed format.

 

[michael hagerty]

The complaint of repetition tends to come up in two categories: Someone who hears a song, regardless of how infrequently, that they don't like ("they're playing that AGAIN?")

Disagree. This in fact would apply more to CHR music than to a classic hit that is featured once in a blue moon (in other words, a lost hit).

Nope. Shows up all the time in research. In fact, we see evidence of it on this board. There are several people here who could not hear "Brown Eyed Girl" for six months, and the first time they hear the intro on a Classic Hits station will say "See? That's all they ever play!"

People want to hear songs they like on a fairly regular basis. Two plays is too much for songs they don't like.

 

[michael hagerty]

You do know that just because a station is able to fire up the transmitter doesn't mean it is successful or profitable, right?

Well of course, at least they are trying. Give them a chance.

I'm giving them a chance. But it's naive to suggest that just because someone is putting something on the air, it's working.

 

[michael hagerty]

You do know that just because a station is able to fire up the transmitter doesn't mean it is successful or profitable, right?

Conversely, it doesn't mean that they can't be profitable. Sometimes it pays to be different. It would be a pretty boring world if everyone felt the same way about everything.

But that's pretty nebulous. The only certainties are the stations that are profitable. And they are, overwhelmingly, the stations that conduct and properly execute what they learn from statistically sound research.

 

[oldies76]

At KFRC, Gerry Cagle was replaced by a PD who thought he needed to add variety. In a year, the station went from #3 to out of the Top 10. In a year and a half, the new PD was gone. In two and a half, KFRC changed format.

That was a long time ago, times have changed, thus the variety on newer smaller market stations.
Whether this new approach works, only time will tell.

 

[oldies76]

People want to hear songs they like on a fairly regular basis. Two plays is too much for songs they don't like.

All they have to do is wait a measly 2-4 minutes and lo and behold, one of their prized favorites will play again. Someone else will enjoy that other song that someone else disliked. Everyone has their favorites.

(This thread is sounding very familiar again...Will It Go Around in Circles"......) :

 

[SolidGold16]

If you're listening to KOLA all day long, you're not listening the way the typical listener does.

Yes, and I've stated as much. But I know I can't be the only one out there that listens more than 22 minutes a day. One thing I am quite sure of: they repeat the same songs a lot. Even that I could tolerate to some extent. But now that they've changed to something I can't recognize, playing songs from the 90s, which in a lot of cases I have never heard (or don't want to hear), I've tuned out forever. Like I told David, this was purely a business decision on their part, and I understand that. I won't miss them since I've found much better alternatives already. I guess they won't miss me, either, since they've changed beyond recognition. And that's that.

At KFRC, Gerry Cagle was replaced by a PD who thought he needed to add variety. In a year, the station went from #3 to out of the Top 10. In a year and a half, the new PD was gone. In two and a half, KFRC changed format.

Without knowing exactly what kind of "variety" was added, I can't comment on this. If he added Polka Music to the mix (J/K here) that would explain it. You understand my point. You can't just have variety for the sake of variety.

 

[michael hagerty]

At KFRC, Gerry Cagle was replaced by a PD who thought he needed to add variety. In a year, the station went from #3 to out of the Top 10. In a year and a half, the new PD was gone. In two and a half, KFRC changed format.

That was a long time ago, times have changed, thus the variety on newer smaller market stations.
Whether this new approach works, only time will tell.

This is like herding cats....

Let's go back to the source:

Quote from: TheBigA on Today at 12:13:13 AM
The smaller the playlist, the bigger the audience.

Quote from: SolidGold16 on Today at 12:19:07 AM
If this is true, then why don't they just go for it, narrow the playlist to 100 songs? Or 50? Or 10? or just 1? Through "research", find the most popular song in history, and just play that 24/7.

Quote from: michael hagerty on Today at 12:27:02 AM
My answer to your earlier post outlines how people in the desired demographic actually use the medium, what they hear and how often.

Right now, successful Classic Hits stations are working with roughly 800 songs. And the balance is right for the intended audience.

The fact of the matter is that severely tight playlists like you facetiously suggest have been used...and have worked.

WABC, New York and KCBQ, San Diego dominated their markets with 22 song current playlists when their competitors were running 30 or 40.

Gerry Cagle did exceptionally well at KFRC, San Francisco from 1980-1983 with 30 currents, 50 currents and 100 goldens.

But today, for adults in their 40s, 800 seems to work very well.

Okay? I never suggested...in fact, I stated the opposite...that you could fly with 180 titles today.

As for "the variety on newer smaller market stations", it's not anything new. Small market stations have been playing more songs than large market stations for as long as I can remember.

For the most part, it's because they don't have money for research and/or don't have PDs experienced enough to understand how listeners actually use the medium. But where they have taken the plunge, the results have been stellar (see: Joplin, MO).

 

[michael hagerty]

People want to hear songs they like on a fairly regular basis. Two plays is too much for songs they don't like.

All they have to do is wait a measly 2-4 minutes and lo and behold, one of their prized favorites will play again.

But they won't. Because they have 6 to 9 other stations they also like and they know how to use the little buttons on the radio that change stations.

 

[michael hagerty]

If you're listening to KOLA all day long, you're not listening the way the typical listener does.

Yes, and I've stated as much. But I know I can't be the only one out there that listens more than 22 minutes a day. One thing I am quite sure of: they repeat the same songs a lot. Even that I could tolerate to some extent. But now that they've changed to something I can't recognize, playing songs from the 90s, which in a lot of cases I have never heard (or don't want to hear), I've tuned out forever. Like I told David, this was purely a business decision on their part, and I understand that. I won't miss them since I've found much better alternatives already. I guess they won't miss me, either, since they've changed beyond recognition. And that's that.

At KFRC, Gerry Cagle was replaced by a PD who thought he needed to add variety. In a year, the station went from #3 to out of the Top 10. In a year and a half, the new PD was gone. In two and a half, KFRC changed format.

Without knowing exactly what kind of "variety" was added, I can't comment on this. If he added Polka Music to the mix (J/K here) that would explain it. You understand my point. You can't just have variety for the sake of variety.

No, Mike Phillips broadened the current playlist to 30-35 songs, beefed up the recurrents to about 150 and took the gold to roughly 600 tracks. And they were all arguably hits. But Mike tinkered with something that was working because his gut told him it shouldn't be. And it killed KFRC, because Mike misjudged how the listeners actually behaved. They heard their favorite songs less after he made his changes. And other stations in the market were more than willing to tighten up and become the new station that played those people's songs.

 

[michael hagerty]

If you're listening to KOLA all day long, you're not listening the way the typical listener does.

Yes, and I've stated as much. But I know I can't be the only one out there that listens more than 22 minutes a day.

The only one? No. A minority? Yes. And it's a numbers game.

 

[SolidGold16]

No, Mike Phillips broadened the current playlist to 30-35 songs, beefed up the recurrents to about 150 and took the gold to roughly 600 tracks. And they were all arguably hits. But Mike tinkered with something that was working because his gut told him it shouldn't be. And it killed KFRC, because Mike misjudged how the listeners actually behaved. They heard their favorite songs less after he made his changes. And other stations in the market were more than willing to tighten up and become the new station that played those people's songs.

I don't know how they conducted research back then, I'm assuming they used diaries? I guess a lot of this in my mind comes down to my innate suspicion of "research". I once got one of those diaries, back around 1997 or so. I was lazy and just filled out whatever I felt like, mostly writing in KOLA and KRTH at random times on different days. I wasn't trying to be dishonest, I was just lazy. If I did that, I have to think many others did the same thing. Easy enough for me to skew results, without trying. Who knows how many listeners I represented? I have no idea, but I wasn't trying to make/break a station. It just wasn't that important to me at that age to make sure my report was accurate. Today, if I had such an opportunity, I would attempt to be more accurate and fair.

All this comes back to the one thing I mentioned, I don't believe the research is as accurate as it's represented to be. For an advertiser like Coke, for example, how could they measure if their ad had any measurable impact on their sales? How can they know that their ad on KOLA (no pun intended) make me go out and buy a six-pack of Coca-Cola? They can't. There's simply no proof that exists that the ad I heard today made me want to go out and buy some.

There's no doubt that advertising works, but measuring the impact in different mediums is not completely provable.

I'm getting off on a tangent here, it's getting late and I'm kind of worn out thinking about this for the day. Almost time to get ready for bed, but I'd love to talk about this more sometime later. I find it facinating that someone believes 100% in statistical research with very small audience samples.

 

[michael hagerty]

No, Mike Phillips broadened the current playlist to 30-35 songs, beefed up the recurrents to about 150 and took the gold to roughly 600 tracks. And they were all arguably hits. But Mike tinkered with something that was working because his gut told him it shouldn't be. And it killed KFRC, because Mike misjudged how the listeners actually behaved. They heard their favorite songs less after he made his changes. And other stations in the market were more than willing to tighten up and become the new station that played those people's songs.

I don't know how they conducted research back then, I'm assuming they used diaries? I guess a lot of this in my mind comes down to my innate suspicion of "research". I once got one of those diaries, back around 1997 or so. I was lazy and just filled out whatever I felt like, mostly writing in KOLA and KRTH at random times on different days. I wasn't trying to be dishonest, I was just lazy. If I did that, I have to think many others did the same thing. Easy enough for me to skew results, without trying. Who knows how many listeners I represented? I have no idea, but I wasn't trying to make/break a station. It just wasn't that important to me at that age to make sure my report was accurate. Today, if I had such an opportunity, I would attempt to be more accurate and fair.

First, we're confusing research and ratings again.

Research is conducted by bringing a few hundred people together and playing them snippets of songs which they then rate electronically. This is done several times a year.

What you're describing is ratings, and yes, they used diaries then. The trouble with diaries was that most people did what you did...most often waiting until the diary was due back and then filling it in by memory. As a result, a lot of what you listened to may not have been credited at all (let's just say that you forgot the 15 minutes listening to a news station six days before), and what you did write in may have been credited with more time than you actually spent listening.

The largest several dozen markets now use PPM...Portable People Meter...technology. The participant wears the device, about the size of a small cell phone. It detects a code embedded in the signal of every radio station and accurately logs what you hear...not what you actively seek out...giving a much more realistic view of what you're exposed to.

For example, let's say that you listen to KOLA on the drive to work and the drive home, and that you have a 25-minute commute. At the office, they play KOST, and at the sandwich shop you grab lunch in most days, they play KFRG. With a diary, you'd probably only write down what you chose to listen to, round the 50 minutes up and just say you spend an hour a day listening to KOLA.

But the meter records what actually happens. You're hearing KOLA for 50 minutes, KFRG for 60 and KOST for 480.

All this comes back to the one thing I mentioned, I don't believe the research is as accurate as it's represented to be. For an advertiser like Coke, for example, how could they measure if their ad had any measurable impact on their sales? How can they know that their ad on KOLA (no pun intended) make me go out and buy a six-pack of Coca-Cola? They can't. There's simply no proof that exists that the ad I heard today made me want to go out and buy some.

There's no doubt that advertising works, but measuring the impact in different mediums is not completely provable.

This goes back to numbers of exposures required. Coke doesn't determine whether a single station is moving the needle on sales. They have a strategy that includes buying many different stations and kinds of media that have high exposure levels in the desired demographic. As long as sales perform to expectation, then the ad strategy itself is deemed successful. Stations that fall below the threshold in terms of numbers within the demo get dropped from the buys. It's down to enough of a science that a statistically sound ad buy rarely fails to deliver the desired results, absent some outside disruption (sudden drop in the economy, adverse publicity for the brand like a health or safety scare, etc.).

[/quote]