I, too have to agree that announcers on most contemporary stations chatter much drivel and don't announce songs like they should! Not ALL of us watch MTV, listen on-line or have readouts on our car radios! It's sad, but the old "When you play it, say it" campaign from a number of years back seemed to amount to nothing!
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Alan Burn's recent findings
- Thread starter klutch00
- Start date
Well, like one of the songs by The Who puts it, the music must change.
Question is, will its presenters change along with it?
Reminds me of another question one manager told me to frequently ask to make sense of what's going on, namely, "What's being rewarded?"
If the radio station found a reward between talking about the music and presenting it, such talk would continue. However, it hasn't.
Add to that the consumer-driven angle of self-serve for everything. The notion is that no longer do you want to be told about the latest artists. Instead, you as a search-engine driven 18-to-34-or-49 in command think about finding everything on your own. Why then would you pay a DJ or the like to tell you about stuff you can look up on your own?
To hell with delegation!
Question is, will its presenters change along with it?
Reminds me of another question one manager told me to frequently ask to make sense of what's going on, namely, "What's being rewarded?"
If the radio station found a reward between talking about the music and presenting it, such talk would continue. However, it hasn't.
Add to that the consumer-driven angle of self-serve for everything. The notion is that no longer do you want to be told about the latest artists. Instead, you as a search-engine driven 18-to-34-or-49 in command think about finding everything on your own. Why then would you pay a DJ or the like to tell you about stuff you can look up on your own?
To hell with delegation!
Sorry, but talking about the music isn't any more compelling than talking about nuclear physics. Sure the nuclear physics geeks care, just as the music fans care. But the vast majority don't.
Why are we trying to guess what listeners are interested in? Why not ask them? Why not hang with them a while and LISTEN to them? I promise you the conversation won't be about the music. Unless it's about what they did while listening to it.
I suggest you simply let the LISTENERS talk about the music. Make the show about them. Let them pick the songs, talk about the songs, and even sing along every now and then. That's more compelling than some full-of-himself DJ reading bio or prep material.
Why are we trying to guess what listeners are interested in? Why not ask them? Why not hang with them a while and LISTEN to them? I promise you the conversation won't be about the music. Unless it's about what they did while listening to it.
I suggest you simply let the LISTENERS talk about the music. Make the show about them. Let them pick the songs, talk about the songs, and even sing along every now and then. That's more compelling than some full-of-himself DJ reading bio or prep material.
TheBigA said:
Now THERE'S a formula for success. I DARE you to try out THAT format. C'mon, you keep insisting that you can pick up a station for pocket change. Here's YOUR chance to revolutionize the industry with YOUR brilliance.
Boy, you must really be jealous of jocks. Whatsa matter, A? Didn't make on the air, so now you're trying to make sure that very few other people get to opportunity to outperform you? Your attitude toward air talent is unwarranted.
Now, go ahead and cite a couple of examples that "prove" your point, because there ARE a few assholes out there. You should be particularly able to recognize them.
Alan Burns said, nobody wants to hear a DJ dribble on about a song. Nobody wants to hear a DJ dribble on, because they've become irrelevant. In 1960, a simpler time, listeners believed the DJ was picking songs for me, they felt a a real connection. It was about the people, it always about people. Now spewing meaningless spam is what you get.,
But what's missing is the excitement about the music, what missing is passion.
Except for the prize pigs, hearing about a contest or website over and over
is annoying. It's irrelevant because most listeners don't care about the contesting. And once I visit your website once, there's NO reason to return, ever! Most radio station websites suck.
Listener want what they want, when they want it. They want to control the content.
Even hearing traffic reports isn't what listeners want, all the time! They want to decide when it's appropriate for them.
Mobile media, iphone, IP radio and alike are becoming the new radio. Look for cheaper iphone like clones, coming to a store near you.
Spending time with listeners and asking them what they want is scary, because most people don't know what they want. Thus why the research is mostly flawed. You can't predict or craft an experience that's appealing; you can take an educated guess and hope you're right. More happens by mistake than intention. What's missing from all radio is innovation, experimenting and risk.. Radio is stale, dead, and not very interesting anymore. It's only utility value is playing music. Otherwise I just google what I want.
Radio became so focused on ratings and revenues, that it forgot the most important part, It's entertainment!
Sorry
But what's missing is the excitement about the music, what missing is passion.
Except for the prize pigs, hearing about a contest or website over and over
is annoying. It's irrelevant because most listeners don't care about the contesting. And once I visit your website once, there's NO reason to return, ever! Most radio station websites suck.
Listener want what they want, when they want it. They want to control the content.
Even hearing traffic reports isn't what listeners want, all the time! They want to decide when it's appropriate for them.
Mobile media, iphone, IP radio and alike are becoming the new radio. Look for cheaper iphone like clones, coming to a store near you.
Spending time with listeners and asking them what they want is scary, because most people don't know what they want. Thus why the research is mostly flawed. You can't predict or craft an experience that's appealing; you can take an educated guess and hope you're right. More happens by mistake than intention. What's missing from all radio is innovation, experimenting and risk.. Radio is stale, dead, and not very interesting anymore. It's only utility value is playing music. Otherwise I just google what I want.
Radio became so focused on ratings and revenues, that it forgot the most important part, It's entertainment!
Sorry
pocket-radio said:
No...what's missing is music worth being passionate about. I don't think there is much, and I don't think people need the radio to hear someone else be passionate about someone else's taste in music.
If you build a radio format about music, and the music sucks (which is what Alan Burns did with Movin') the absolute LAST thing you then want to do is have the DJs talk about the sucky music. Give up on the music already. Try to think of something besides music to build radio around.
I, as a listener, want to hear title and artist. That's not droning on and on about the music. A service component of music radio (particularly new music) is title and artist. Little tidbits of information about the artist is ok, but not necessary. On talk radio you always hear the name of the person being interviewed and what they are going to talk about. On music radio, you should always hear the name of the song and the artist.
72% of what goes over the air is about us. 72%! Promotions, contesting website mentions, positioning statements.
Yet, bailey 1% of listeners will ever respond to a promotion, or contesting. So I guess 99% of listeners view what we do as mostly spam. Which is why they hit scan to hear another song, or mentally just tune out. The rest plug into their ipods, or subscribe to satellite radio, or listen to NPR..
Yet, bailey 1% of listeners will ever respond to a promotion, or contesting. So I guess 99% of listeners view what we do as mostly spam. Which is why they hit scan to hear another song, or mentally just tune out. The rest plug into their ipods, or subscribe to satellite radio, or listen to NPR..
pocket-radio said:
The facts don't bear that out. The majority don't hit scan, subscribe to satellite radio, or listen to NPR. The majority just keep listening.
The mistake Burns makes is that listeners actually want to hear DJs talk about the music. As a consultant, even HE doesn't advise his clients to talk about the music. Why should non-clients listen to him on that subject.
TheBigA said:
For years the mathematician in me along with the strong bent for logical integrity keeps coming back to a question that your excellent answer above ignores. At any given moment the great majority is not "just keeping listening". The great majority has the radio turned off.
What would radio have to do to get more people who have the radio turned off to join the ranks of those listening at any given time.
What percentage of the people are listening to radio at peak times? This is not my area of competency and expertise, but my recollection is around 22%?
There is a problem about NOT talking about the music, sucky or otherwise. One of the big arguments radio has made against the performance tax is that the music people were getting the benefit of the free promotion and advertising of their music by virtue of radio playing it on the air. If that goes away then we totally lose the war against the performance tax because we have become just another music source without any "value added" content provided by the dj ie: song title and artist name where the listener can then go out and BUY (yea right) the song for their personal library.TheBigA said:
And for all of you nay-sayers who say the current generation is not listening to radio, I am afraid the ratings tell a different tale. If what you say is true then there would not be a single CHR in the top 10 in any major market and that simply is not true. OK maybe not in the numbers of years gone by when radio was king, but they are listening to music formats, not Rush Limbaugh!
"The airplay is the promotion" only when the listener who likes the song is informed of the name of the artist and title of song. Can't buy it easily without that simple, basic information. If the air personality or pre-recorded voice doesn't tell them, then their next option is having to turn on their computer, log onto the stations website and fish around for the playlist. Too much of a bother, particularly if you're in the car when you hear the song, because then you need to remember about what time you heard the song on top of turning on the computer, clicking on internet explorer, going to the stations website, which you may have to search for unless you know it, and then look around the website for the link to the playlist. Having the host simply say "That was "Halo" by Beyonce" before talking about something else like the latest contest is more convenient for the listener. This also avoids dissatisfaction on the part of listeners who wait 'til the end of a song to hear title and artist, and then are disappointed when the information is not forthcoming.
Good grief! First off, I will admit to bias - I don't have a lot of confidence in consultants as I believe overall they have caused more harm than good. While there are always exceptions, I wouldn't be so quick to accept Mr. Burn's findings as being totally correct. While on the subject of music, there are many stations that promote themselves as playing XX minutes of music an hour or X # of songs in a row. More than likely this is a result of a consulant's opinion that stations need to make this impression on the listener. All this is negated when a listener is in what appears to be a never ending stop set. Perhaps it's just me but hearing one sweeper after the next over 10 times per hour every bloody hour talk about HOW MUCH music is played annoys me to no end. Just play the music and let that speak for itself.
I believe you need to find proper balance in announcing song titles. There are times it is very appropriate to do so and there are some formats that can require mentioning a song title or artist a little more often. If we look at contemporary stations such as AC, the majority of songs played are not really currents. Many are "yesterday's favorites" and have been aired for decades. I believe we should all agree listeners do not need to be reminded they just heard Elton John's "Your Song" or Fleetwood Mac's "Dreams."
By design, AC is the perfect backdrop in offices, restaurants and for listeners who want to hear soft favorites. Too much chatter takes away from the overall sound. Sure, I will agree that new additions to the playlist should be programmed so that the talent can say something about the song provided it's the last song played. Announcing what played 4 songs back is ridiculous. I think we have all been there where we just turn on the radio to be informed that a song we really love played a few minutes ago. I never understood the need for that kind of programming.
When a station is presenting special programming such as an A-Z countdown, Top 500 or really anything that airs songs not normally played, it is a disservice NOT to hear something about the song and/or artist. But there's a time and a place for this.
This wouldn't be the first time consultants speak out of two sides of their mouths. After years of minimizing the role of the talent, now it is determined there should be a little more excitement and mentions of the music played. You can't have it both ways. Also, I agree with many of the posters who say there is really very little to get excited about musically. There is so little effort by the programmers and pocket-radio is correct when he says radio forgets it's about entertainment.
Lastly, another issue I have with these consultant edicts is that it just adds another "to do" item on the to do list and it all comes off as so mechanical sounding. Jocks have so little freedom and latitude and this results in lost opportunities. They can only talk when programmed to do so. If an artist comes up in rotation who has just been thrust onto the national news spotlight but is positioned between sweepers, the jock could still decide to talk about the event when the stopset begins but it would loose impact.
That's another issue for the listener. Radio looses relevance when it misses opportunity and gives listeners information they more than likely know anyway. No one really wants to hear factoids hour after hour. It has to be genuine and appropriate. I wouldn't put too much stock in consultants. When you consider all the displaced talent and PDs out there who have a proven track record, it's such a shame they find themselves on the outside looking in.
I believe you need to find proper balance in announcing song titles. There are times it is very appropriate to do so and there are some formats that can require mentioning a song title or artist a little more often. If we look at contemporary stations such as AC, the majority of songs played are not really currents. Many are "yesterday's favorites" and have been aired for decades. I believe we should all agree listeners do not need to be reminded they just heard Elton John's "Your Song" or Fleetwood Mac's "Dreams."
By design, AC is the perfect backdrop in offices, restaurants and for listeners who want to hear soft favorites. Too much chatter takes away from the overall sound. Sure, I will agree that new additions to the playlist should be programmed so that the talent can say something about the song provided it's the last song played. Announcing what played 4 songs back is ridiculous. I think we have all been there where we just turn on the radio to be informed that a song we really love played a few minutes ago. I never understood the need for that kind of programming.
When a station is presenting special programming such as an A-Z countdown, Top 500 or really anything that airs songs not normally played, it is a disservice NOT to hear something about the song and/or artist. But there's a time and a place for this.
This wouldn't be the first time consultants speak out of two sides of their mouths. After years of minimizing the role of the talent, now it is determined there should be a little more excitement and mentions of the music played. You can't have it both ways. Also, I agree with many of the posters who say there is really very little to get excited about musically. There is so little effort by the programmers and pocket-radio is correct when he says radio forgets it's about entertainment.
Lastly, another issue I have with these consultant edicts is that it just adds another "to do" item on the to do list and it all comes off as so mechanical sounding. Jocks have so little freedom and latitude and this results in lost opportunities. They can only talk when programmed to do so. If an artist comes up in rotation who has just been thrust onto the national news spotlight but is positioned between sweepers, the jock could still decide to talk about the event when the stopset begins but it would loose impact.
That's another issue for the listener. Radio looses relevance when it misses opportunity and gives listeners information they more than likely know anyway. No one really wants to hear factoids hour after hour. It has to be genuine and appropriate. I wouldn't put too much stock in consultants. When you consider all the displaced talent and PDs out there who have a proven track record, it's such a shame they find themselves on the outside looking in.
Government is too big as it is. However, if the record industry would go with 'play-it-say-it' in place of/instead of the proposed royalty, don't you think the radio industry would agree with that whole-heartedly?
I don't think the recording industry would want to replace money with play-and-say, however if it would be forthcoming, the radio industry would say sure, since they for sure don't want to pay more for the music they play.
- Status