Again, Agency - Client research is OFF

[muskrat14]

I understand your frustration with the system. I speak as someone who got bounced out on oldies gig a few years ago. It's time to face facts, though. Oldies fans have to realize commercial OTA radio will never serve them again. Get a satellite subscription, listen to internet radio or buy an iPod.

And comfort yourself with this -- in a few years, your younger brothers and sisters will be crying about their music disappearing from the radio, too. Time marches on.

Wow. Spoken like a real corporate bureaucrat. Radio isn't going to grow. We're all going to shut the stations down. It's over. Young people don't listen anyway.

If you work in radio, I can see why the medium is in trouble with "thinking" like that.

Benn away from the board for a few days, but I have to respond to this.

"Corporate bureaucrat?" LOL. I may be many things, but that is label you could never hang on me, much to the detriment of my career. Anybody that knows me knows I've been in trouble many times for not being a corproate bureaucrat.

What I am, though, is a realist. Something I've not seen addressed on this entire thread by you dreamers is what David has pointed out numerous times -- yet you still refuse to respond to. This problem is at the client level. Your fight is not with radio (and by extension with David), or with Arbitron, or with ad agencies. Your fight is at the client level, with P&G, with A-B, with the automakers, etc. They are the ones that have decided -- via the millions they spend on marketing research -- that they can't effectively use radio to reach 55+ (and that's even if they wanted to). They will use TV, magazines, direct mail and newspapers to reach that demo, if they want to reach it at all.

Going directly to the client is a dicey proposition. Bypassing the agency will make you an outcast. And I would love to be in the room when you tell the client -- and its VP of Marketing -- that the millions it spends on research are wasted, that the results are meaningless. Now that will get you a buy.

My original proposition stands. Oldies fans (of which I am one, by the way -- heck I VT a small market Oldies station) in the larger markets are going to have to go satellite, internet or iPod, the way the fans of Glenn Miller and Tommy Dorsey already have to. Time marches on.

 

[fang39]

This is one of those types of arguements that will never see a resolution. It just seems to me that Radio as an industry, just keeps sticking it's head deeper into the ground, instead of figuring a way out of its current downward spiral. While it's true that the overall number of listeners has decreased in recent years, with the plethora of entertainment alternatives, radio continues to find ways to shoot itself in the foot. Radio is more interested in serving as "acoustic wallpaper," being played in the background at the office or retail store to gain cume than to cultivate actual listeners, by delivering great content to people who are interested in the message being sent.

With all due respect to Mr. Eduardo and his many accomplishments, IMHO it's his type of thinking that is contributing to the decline of radio. You can skew the Arbitron numbers any which way you like, but the fact remains, Radio is losing its standing as a prime source of entertainment and information. I seem to remember a generation that lived by the mantra "The RULES are what we make them!" Now, we just play "follow the leader." Unfortunately, the "leaders" are the ones leading us down the road of ruin!

I think Radio needs to take a "Back To The Future" approach. Live and local is the only way to go. Give the listeners a reason to listen. It's the WIIFM (What's In It For Me?). Put air personalities on the air who actually have something to say and not limit them to reading liner cards. That'll certainly bring up the standard of the on-air content and reduce the pool of talented jocks who are currently "on the beach". Widen the playlists and not just settle for the standard 200-400 song rotation. Get involved in the local community by partnering with schools and civic organizations.

And finally, while I fully understand the Radio/Advertiser dynamic, just remember that no one has ever turned on a radio to listen the the commercials! Deliver programming that people will want to listen to and advertisers will line up to get a shot at selling their product to them!

 

[davideduardo]

This is one of those types of arguements that will never see a resolution. It just seems to me that Radio as an industry, just keeps sticking it's head deeper into the ground, instead of figuring a way out of its current downward spiral.

The reason nothing makes sense to you is that your premise of a "downward spiral" is false or, at best, exaggerated. Radio is not being sucked into some Hollywood-like votex of death. The facts are that radio cume is within a percent or so of the historic highs of the 1987-1989 period (based on 43 years of Arbitron apples-to-apples comparisons). Time spent listening is off on average about 20% over that same period, although the loss is greater in younger demos... but even 95% of teens still use radio, the same amount they did 20 years ago.

Radio is impacted, as all entertainment and leisure time alternatives, by an explosion of options from video games (120 million consoles) to video on demand, iPods, and all manner of other devices and systems. The fact that a century old technology has survived this long is quite amazing.

While it's true that the overall number of listeners has decreased in recent years,

That's just it: your premise is wrong. The overall number of listeners has not decreased. The amount of time they spend with radio has, but only gradually.

False premise, false conclusions ahead.

Radio is more interested in serving as "acoustic wallpaper," being played in the background at the office or retail store to gain cume than to cultivate actual listeners, by delivering great content to people who are interested in the message being sent.

Sometimes the content listeners want is music programming they can listen to while working or doing something else. That was the whole premise of Top 40 back in August of 1952 when "radio was dying" in that while TV required full attention, radio could go with any other activity like work, driving, mowing the lawn, etc. The whole idea of radio since it's 50's rebirth was accompaniement.

You can skew the Arbitron numbers any which way you like, but the fact remains, Radio is losing its standing as a prime source of entertainment and information.

Radio has not been that since the lift of the TV freeze, and that was 55 years ago.

I think Radio needs to take a "Back To The Future" approach. Live and local is the only way to go.

Listeners don't give a cowpie if something is live, or 95% of TV and cable would not be viewed. And local is only good if it is entertaining. I don't see local live hosts beating Leno in late night tv, either. And that is because listeners don't seek out live and local. They seek out entertainment.

Give the listeners a reason to listen. It's the WIIFM (What's In It For Me?). Put air personalities on the air who actually have something to say and not limit them to reading liner cards.

Actually, in many formats jocks are allowed certain freedom, and those who have something to say say it. But some formats are attractive to listeners because there is little talk and few interruptions... that is what they like. In some cases, very successful formats have been based on the "no annoying jocks" premise, like KCBS FM in LA.

That'll certainly bring up the standard of the on-air content and reduce the pool of talented jocks who are currently "on the beach".

That's not true.

[/quote] Widen the playlists and not just settle for the standard 200-400 song rotation.[/quote]

Every format has an ideal library size... a CHUrban might be 110 songs, a country station averages around 600. Stations that go beyond the library that listeners collectively like to hear will die. I have seen it happen over and over... I learned years ago by trying the "more songs equals more variety" theory... and lost big. Now I am amused when competitors do the same and die.

Get involved in the local community by partnering with schools and civic organizations.

Many stations do, if it fits the format. Others do not, as listeners to them have said that they don't want that sort of stuff on a particular format.

And finally, while I fully understand the Radio/Advertiser dynamic, just remember that no one has ever turned on a radio to listen the the commercials! Deliver programming that people will want to listen to and advertisers will line up to get a shot at selling their product to them!

Again, for the 237th time. Agency accounts tell the agencies what ages to target. The fact that an out-of-target station has lots of geezers listening will not change the advertiser dictate to the agency.

Only smaller local direct accounts or local advertisers in small markets will make less reasoned decisions and buy geezer demos.

 

[Don62]

Listeners don't give a cowpie if something is live, or 95% of TV and cable would not be viewed. And local is only good if it is entertaining. I don't see local live hosts beating Leno in late night tv, either. And that is because listeners don't seek out live and local. They seek out entertainment.

...

Only smaller local direct accounts or local advertisers in small markets will make less reasoned decisions and buy geezer demos.

Wait there a minute, fellow. By your definition, you are an old geezer, right?

So older advertisers are senile? Less reasoned? You are the voice of reason here and in their markets and buys, right?

The Leno comparison is a crock, as TV and radio are two completely different mediums, if you didn't know, expert.

Not everyone watches Leno or Letterman, and people listening to the radio at that hour could likely care less about who or what is on TV at the time.
They're not expecting some Leno-type star programming on their radio.

They do expect, however, some sense of localism, and would not think some jock on the air is actually 1,000 miles away pretending to be in their market and feigning knowledge of the situation.

 

[davideduardo]

Listeners don't give a cowpie if something is live, or 95% of TV and cable would not be viewed. And local is only good if it is entertaining. I don't see local live hosts beating Leno in late night tv, either. And that is because listeners don't seek out live and local. They seek out entertainment.

...

Only smaller local direct accounts or local advertisers in small markets will make less reasoned decisions and buy geezer demos.

Wait there a minute, fellow. By your definition, you are an old geezer, right?

My age is irrelevant. Agency accounts... essentially all of them... exclude 55+, often called "geezer demos."

So older advertisers are senile? Less reasoned? You are the voice of reason here and in their markets and buys, right?

I did not say anything about the age of the advertisers. What I said is that stations with older demos may work in smaller markets with direct accounts which don't understand ROI on advertising. It's a question of sophicstication and market knowledge, not age.

The Leno comparison is a crock, as TV and radio are two completely different mediums, if you didn't know, expert.

They are separate media. But the same issues apply in personality shows. Look at the pre-Oprah (and pre Jenny Jones, et. al.) daytime shows where local shows were blown away by the networked / syndicated stuff.

Not everyone watches Leno or Letterman,

But, in any market the share for either is generally quite higher than the share for even the market leading morning show on radio. But that was not my point... which was that, whether it is TV or radio or satellite or webcasting, the most entertaining or compelling show wins, and bad or weak local stuff does not trump better national shows.

and people listening to the radio at that hour could likely care less about who or what is on TV at the time.
They're not expecting some Leno-type star programming on their radio.

Dude, you don't understand analogies well. My point is that Leno is NOT local, but he (and Carson and others before him) killed many attempts to do local or syndicated shows in that time slot. Local does not win automatically. Good beats mediocre, and mediocre trumps bad. It does not matter where it is from.

They do expect, however, some sense of localism, and would not think some jock on the air is actually 1,000 miles away pretending to be in their market and feigning knowledge of the situation.

Whether it was Stern in the past or Delilah or Rush or any other successful syndicated show today, the superstars rise to the top and they get networked because they win in nearly every market, beating local shows left and right. In most markets, there is just not a lot of local stuff to talk about... so local often means "boring."

I've interviewd and talked with lots of listeners, and being local is not a quality that they ever bring up. Since nearly all non-local shows include local weather or traffic cut ins, and often some form of local news and PSA's, that covers 99% of what is important anyway.

 

[oldies76]

fang39 Widen the playlists and not just settle for the standard 200-400 song rotation. Get involved in the local community by partnering with schools and civic organizations.

And finally, while I fully understand the Radio/Advertiser dynamic, just remember that no one has ever turned on a radio to listen the the commercials! Deliver programming that people will want to listen to and advertisers will line up to get a shot at selling their product to them!

Something I've also been trying to present here on the boards too, but others, like D.E. & USSR, just don't buy it.

Why in anyone's world would anyone want to be stuck with the same & repetitive 200 to 500 songs over and over, daily??

People enjoy living in musical boredom, not realizing it.

You're right..I listen to radio for the music (for what its worth), not the long and boring spots...maybe twice in the last 20 years, I actually referred to a radio ad for my needs!

 

[davideduardo]

Something I've also been trying to present here on the boards too, but others, like D.E. & USSR, just don't buy it.

We don't buy things that are proven to lead to the utter and miserable failure of radio stations.

Why in anyone's world would anyone want to be stuck with the same & repetitive 200 to 500 songs over and over, daily??

Actually, playlist sizes range from about 100 for some CHRs and CHurbans to 600 to 700 for country and as much as a thousand for some Jack type stations.

Each format has a number that represents all the songs there are that research well. If you play any more songs, you are playing bad songs, songs many listeners hate, and which, hour after hour, will drive most of you listeners away.

Those of us in radio have witnessed it, or worse, done it. It's painful.

People enjoy living in musical boredom, not realizing it.

No, people want to hear their favorite songs. Not stiffs, not medicre songs, not "I wishe I didn't have to be reminded of that song" type songs.

 

[oldies76]

DavidEduardo No, people want to hear their favorite songs. Not stiffs, not medicre songs, not "I wishe I didn't have to be reminded of that song" type songs.

I know we've discussed this numerous times before, "people want to hear their favorite songs".....ok then, what if some of these "people" have "favorite songs" that are not even aired on some of these classic hits stations?? To them, these are not stiffs or mediocre. You cannot assume that untested songs or songs that fail are not somebody's favorites.

Everyone has their favorites and I can bet...that the majority of songs from the past, that are not even aired today, are indeed someone's favorites tunes, someone's memory. You cannot discount these at all.

A good example: "Honey" (1968) was aired on the KDZA A to Z promotion going on right now. The jock bashed this song before it played (acting surprised it even made #1) After it aired..two listeners called in immediately and told the DJ that this song meant something to them (life stories), almost like "why the bashing??"

"Honey" may be a sad & depressing song and a stiff, right? But it means well for others and why not......people have their choices and memories. And this goes for all "hits" that are not aired today.

 

[davideduardo]

I know we've discussed this numerous times before, "people want to hear their favorite songs".....ok then, what if some of these "people" have "favorite songs" that are not even aired on some of these classic hits stations?? To them, these are not stiffs or mediocre. You cannot assume that untested songs or songs that fail are not somebody's favorites.

All the possible songs have been tested. All of them. Only the ones that the majority of the listeners like a lot get played.

A number of us who actually do this for a living have told you this. You keep repeating the same mantra, over and over and over. The problem is that all the things you think stations should do have been tried and have failed. Sometimes they were tried by programmers who felt like you, and who had little experience. Other times some poor fool thought they had discovered what nobody else knew.

Big lists made up of lots of poor testing songs don't get ratings. Period.

Everyone has their favorites and I can bet...that the majority of songs from the past, that are not even aired today, are indeed someone's favorites tunes, someone's memory. You cannot discount these at all.

If 90% of the listeners hate it, we are not going to play it. If 50% hate it we are not going to play it. We are going to play mass appeal songs, not ones that only a few like and that will make everyone else go away. We are radio, not an iPod.

A good example: "Honey" (1968) was aired on the KDZA A to Z promotion going on right now. The jock bashed this song before it played (acting surprised it even made #1) After it aired..two listeners called in immediately and told the DJ that this song meant something to them (life stories), almost like "why the bashing??"

That's a stupid and way too long specialty show, and and even dumber jock to put that on the air. Somebody in Pueblo had a big bowl of stupid the day they thought this thing up. Ugh.

You really have to quit looking for radio stations that will play the songs nearly nobody else wants to hear. Please, buy an iPod.

 

[The Beave]

OK David,

Another laugher... why not put those "Songs people want to hear that the radio and record industry will not usually give us" on HD-2 or HD-3 with a voicetracked announcer. Odds are 3 to 1 that the album cuts will eventually become hits if people get to hear them before buying them. This was my liking back in 1980 long before (8 years) I get into radio or even had a thought about doing it. I would also be interested in how well it Arbi's out.

This takes a cut of listeners away from online sites, and could really determine a change for the better in how music is actually chosen. Being it looks like radio will be paying royalties soon enough. Also It may change the "force feeding of promoted songs" by reps and labels.

 

[TheFonz]

You really have to quit looking for radio stations that will play the songs nearly nobody else wants to hear. Please, buy an iPod.

Stop wasting time and energy arguing about terrestrial radio playlists. Satellite radio has it all!

 

[Don62]

You really have to quit looking for radio stations that will play the songs nearly nobody else wants to hear. Please, buy an iPod.

Stop wasting time and energy arguing about terrestrial radio playlists. Satellite radio has it all!

You got that right.
I don't have satellite radio, but likely will add it once the economy improves.

I rented a car for like two weeks. Not once did I tune into the lousy FM band, not that I ever listen to that suck-o frequency that's "all for young people, all the time" anyway.

I did tune to local AM talk occasionally, or if I found a MOYL local station or a full-service AM (a rarity these days), but otherwise, it was all Sirius or XM all the way.

 

[davideduardo]

Stop wasting time and energy arguing about terrestrial radio playlists. Satellite radio has it all!

For 55+, this is absolutely true. Radio can not and will not program specifically to geezers, so the option is satellite. Go for it.

 

[Don62]

You really have to quit looking for radio stations that will play the songs nearly nobody else wants to hear. [size=10pt]Please, buy an iPod.
[/size]

Nice constructive and progressive, forward-thinking attitude. Good way to keep customers and attract more listeners.
No wonder radio is in the dumpers.

 

[Don62]

DavidEduardo No, people want to hear their favorite songs. Not stiffs, not medicre songs, not "I wishe I didn't have to be reminded of that song" type songs.

I know we've discussed this numerous times before, "people want to hear their favorite songs".....ok then, what if some of these "people" have "favorite songs" that are not even aired on some of these classic hits stations?? To them, these are not stiffs or mediocre. You cannot assume that untested songs or songs that fail are not somebody's favorites.

Everyone has their favorites and I can bet...that the majority of songs from the past, that are not even aired today, are indeed someone's favorites tunes, someone's memory. You cannot discount these at all.

A good example: "Honey" (1968) was aired on the KDZA A to Z promotion going on right now. [size=10pt]The jock bashed this song before it played (acting surprised it even made #1)[/size] After it aired..two listeners called in immediately and told the DJ that this song meant something to them (life stories), almost like "why the bashing??"

"Honey" may be a sad & depressing song and a stiff, right? But it means well for others and why not......people have their choices and memories. And this goes for all "hits" that are not aired today.

That sounds like our resident "expert's" thinking. David is the only one who knows what's right and what's "good" music.

Those people who bought Honey didn't know what they were doing.

That song couldn't have gone to No. 1. Guess Hey Jude's and Santana's chart positions were inflated as well, right buddy?

 

[davideduardo]

That sounds like our resident "expert's" thinking. David is the only one who knows what's right and what's "good" music.

No, the listener is the only one who knows.

Those people who bought Honey didn't know what they were doing.

That was about 40 years ago.

That song couldn't have gone to No. 1. Guess Hey Jude's and Santana's chart positions were inflated as well, right buddy?

Charts were at best suspect. And they do not reflect the local market for each station. And they reflect what the hits, if they were, were 40 years or so ago. What people want to hear today is entirely different from what people liked way back then.

 

[oldies76]

DavidEduardo All the possible songs have been tested. All of them. Only the ones that the majority of the listeners like a lot get played.

The testers represent only a couple hundred of themselves..there are 10's of thousands upon hundreds of thousands of potential listeners who most likely will have far different opinions, than what the testers approve of. You have no idea!

DavidEduardo If 90% of the listeners hate it, we are not going to play it. If 50% hate it we are not going to play it. We are going to play mass appeal songs, not ones that only a few like and that will make everyone else go away. We are radio, not an iPod.

90% / 50% of the 200 TESTERS hate it. Remember, they are only a grain of sand on a beach. There are hundreds of thousands of listeners that have their favorites and it won't be all the tested songs, guaranteed!

DavidEduardo That's a stupid and way too long specialty show, and and even dumber jock to put that on the air. Somebody in Pueblo had a big bowl of stupid the day they thought this thing up. Ugh.

Tell the PD of that station your short-sighted ideas. Go ahead!

David Eduardo You really have to quit looking for radio stations that will play the songs nearly nobody else wants to hear. Please, buy an iPod.

Nobody....are your really sure..all 300,000+ of them...are you 100% sure?? Please Get Real!

 

[The Beave]

Oldies...

I tried to make that point to David and a few others in another post...Mr David, has a consultant's mind and it's closed as some positions in El Lay. I don't think thge guy has learned how to think outside the box and take a few risks.

 

[oldies76]

DavidEduardo No, people want to hear their favorite songs. Not stiffs, not medicre songs.

Did it ever come across to you that a lot of these so-called "stiffs" may indeed be someone else's gem? As far as keeping your customer base...why not please them all? I'm sure "Welcome Back" (1976) is someone's favorite, or maybe even "Mandy" (1975) or "Scorpio" (1972). What makes YOU think that a radio station's repetitive playlist of 400 (based on 100 or so testers) or less is adored and liked by the tens of thousands+ out there?

 

[AZJoe]

That sounds like our resident "expert's" thinking. David is the only one who knows what's right and what's "good" music.

No, the listener is the only one who knows.

Those people who bought Honey didn't know what they were doing.

That was about 40 years ago.

That song couldn't have gone to No. 1. Guess Hey Jude's and Santana's chart positions were inflated as well, right buddy?

Charts were at best suspect. And they do not reflect the local market for each station. And they reflect what the hits, if they were, were 40 years or so ago. What people want to hear today is entirely different from what people liked way back then.

What people want to hear today IS NOT entirely different from what people liked way back then. Tastes can change, and songs that were "hip" back 40 years ago may not have aged as well as some others, but to say the vast majority of the thousands of charted hits over a 30 year period of oldies are no longer worth listening to or desirable is pure bunk. If you fall for the consultant's claim that there are only 400 hits that people will listen to from the 50s, 60s and 70s- I have a bridge in New York to sell you....oh its the same one the consultants have been shoving down the geezers throats for the last 15 years or so!! People listen to oldies to "remember", recall and enjoy life thru their music, this will never change... only the people who try to spoon feed us it has.