As the Earth Turns.

[landtuna]

A single exposure to a spot sells nothing. Which is why they buy reach and frequency. Because over time, the mindless listening gets the message in your brain---it's similar to name recognition for candidates.

I have always been of the opinion that an advertiser selling something needs to contact that specific individual(s) who are already thinking about buying and in that regard I agree with "a single exposure sells nothing". It is easy to miss that one person(s). However, the morning shows in my town run endless commercials for cars - most spots identical to the last per brand. Unless I am already thinking about buying a car those ads are wasted but not only that - they are irritating as well and can cause me to hit the change channel button. Just as the same spot aired endlessly for a political candidate is essentially wasted after the first 2 or 3 airings. Either I have already jumped on the bandwagon or have decided not to vote for him/her and listening to their blurb again and again just wastes my time and pisses me off.

And it isn't only spots that irritate, it is also content. During the past few weeks endless stories have been aired about the royal wedding in the UK. This morning one of my local stations began spewing about the anticipated color of the Queen's hat. ENOUGH! They are off my "must see" list until they quit polluting the airwaves with repetitious nonsense.

My point is that by irritating your viewer/listener you may cause them to change the channel and by doing so help them begin listening to a preferred service. I no longer listen to radio in the car at all because they drove me away with the above practices. I found I don't miss them a bit.

 

[CTListener]

I have always been of the opinion that an advertiser selling something needs to contact that specific individual(s) who are already thinking about buying and in that regard I agree with "a single exposure sells nothing". It is easy to miss that one person(s). However, the morning shows in my town run endless commercials for cars - most spots identical to the last per brand. Unless I am already thinking about buying a car those ads are wasted but not only that - they are irritating as well and can cause me to hit the change channel button. Just as the same spot aired endlessly for a political candidate is essentially wasted after the first 2 or 3 airings. Either I have already jumped on the bandwagon or have decided not to vote for him/her and listening to their blurb again and again just wastes my time and pisses me off.

And it isn't only spots that irritate, it is also content. During the past few weeks endless stories have been aired about the royal wedding in the UK. This morning one of my local stations began spewing about the anticipated color of the Queen's hat. ENOUGH! They are off my "must see" list until they quit polluting the airwaves with repetitious nonsense.

My point is that by irritating your viewer/listener you may cause them to change the channel and by doing so help them begin listening to a preferred service. I no longer listen to radio in the car at all because they drove me away with the above practices. I found I don't miss them a bit.

Radio and television are mass media, and the masses have never been bothered sufficiently by celebrity news, repetition of songs they love, or even advertising to change their listening and viewing habits. The stupider and more gullible the consumer, the easier to sell that consumer a product. You can't work in the marketing or advertising business without a healthy contempt for the end user of the item you're trying to push.

 

[LKellerIII]

A single exposure to a spot sells nothing. Which is why they buy reach and frequency. Because over time, the mindless listening gets the message in your brain---it's similar to name recognition for candidates.

Makes me think of a story...naturally. I used to commute to work on the BART train. One day, at work, the John Lennon song Imagine was stuck in my head, and repeating constantly. I had not been listening to music or radio, and could not figure out why.

Then, on the way home, I noticed an advertisement in my BART car for a ski resort near Lake Tahoe. It said, "Imagine All the People - Living Life on Skis."

So I had obviously seen the ad that morning on some level, though not consciously - then the song had registered subliminally and stuck in my head, but not that it was for a ski resort, nor the name of the particular ski resort. I'm not sure repeated exposure would have mattered, or if I had seen the ad prior to that day.

 

[SuperRadioFan]

I have always been of the opinion that an advertiser selling something needs to contact that specific individual(s) who are already thinking about buying and in that regard I agree with "a single exposure sells nothing". It is easy to miss that one person(s). However, the morning shows in my town run endless commercials for cars - most spots identical to the last per brand. Unless I am already thinking about buying a car those ads are wasted but not only that - they are irritating as well and can cause me to hit the change channel button. Just as the same spot aired endlessly for a political candidate is essentially wasted after the first 2 or 3 airings. Either I have already jumped on the bandwagon or have decided not to vote for him/her and listening to their blurb again and again just wastes my time and pisses me off.

And it isn't only spots that irritate, it is also content. During the past few weeks endless stories have been aired about the royal wedding in the UK. This morning one of my local stations began spewing about the anticipated color of the Queen's hat. ENOUGH! They are off my "must see" list until they quit polluting the airwaves with repetitious nonsense.

My point is that by irritating your viewer/listener you may cause them to change the channel and by doing so help them begin listening to a preferred service. I no longer listen to radio in the car at all because they drove me away with the above practices. I found I don't miss them a bit.

It is just about astounding to me why anyone wastes time listening to most radio stations that play scads of commercials. If it's news they have commercial breaks more frequently, if it's talk or music they space out the commercial breaks at certain times in the clock (hour). Each break "features" at least 4 commercials but most seem to be anywhere from 5- 10 commercials some 30s many 60s. And in most markets (I presume) all the music stations seem to observe the same times for their breaks so if a listener (in their car probably) hits the selector button for a different music station, they cannot avoid the commercials. BTW remember when auto commercials avoided adjacent commercials for a make of car, now that "rule" is out the window. Just this morning my wife and I were talking about "commercials" at the beginning of an online video (You tube or anything else). They make you watch these BUT many have that little bar on the right that says you can skip this commercial in 5 seconds. Neither my wife or myself can remember ANY advertiser on these videos, and when I see that I can skip in 10 seconds, my focus is TOTALLY on that only, I totally space out on the content of the commercial. I rarely expose my ears to commercial music radio when I have choices of my own Spotify mix on shuffle or non-commercial radio. I used to sell "ads" to businesses who want to sponsor PA messages. Then I bought the air time on the radio station I was pitching at the time. Did that for 23 years. So I can appreciate what radio airtime sales people go through, just don't understand the "value" of this to the "advertiser". At home we record most TV programs and skip through the commercials. What does the future hold for broadcast advertising? So, landtuna and others, don't get pissed off, find content without commercials. (even talk radio shows like Handel in the Morning KFI have podcasts available later the same day that totally omits commercials). BTW I agree about anything having to do with "Royal" Weddings .... Didn't we have a revolt about royalty over 240 years ago? LOL Why do I care ?

 

[LKellerIII]

It is just about astounding to me why anyone wastes time listening to most radio stations that play scads of commercials. If it's news they have commercial breaks more frequently, if it's talk or music they space out the commercial breaks at certain times in the clock (hour). Each break "features" at least 4 commercials but most seem to be anywhere from 5- 10 commercials some 30s many 60s. And in most markets (I presume) all the music stations seem to observe the same times for their breaks so if a listener (in their car probably) hits the selector button for a different music station, they cannot avoid the commercials. BTW remember when auto commercials avoided adjacent commercials for a make of car, now that "rule" is out the window. Just this morning my wife and I were talking about "commercials" at the beginning of an online video (You tube or anything else). They make you watch these BUT many have that little bar on the right that says you can skip this commercial in 5 seconds. Neither my wife or myself can remember ANY advertiser on these videos, and when I see that I can skip in 10 seconds, my focus is TOTALLY on that only, I totally space out on the content of the commercial. I rarely expose my ears to commercial music radio when I have choices of my own Spotify mix on shuffle or non-commercial radio. I used to sell "ads" to businesses who want to sponsor PA messages. Then I bought the air time on the radio station I was pitching at the time. Did that for 23 years. So I can appreciate what radio airtime sales people go through, just don't understand the "value" of this to the "advertiser". At home we record most TV programs and skip through the commercials. What does the future hold for broadcast advertising? So, landtuna and others, don't get pissed off, find content without commercials. (even talk radio shows like Handel in the Morning KFI have podcasts available later the same day that totally omits commercials). BTW I agree about anything having to do with "Royal" Weddings .... Didn't we have a revolt about royalty over 240 years ago? LOL Why do I care ?

Agreed. I'm sure Mr. Eduardo would say I was not the kind of person advertisers are looking for anyway - but I used to default to radio because listening was fun when they let good DJs talk, and it was easy. But once the music stations became nothing more than jukeboxes...with play lists about half as long as the average juke box, I lost interest. Even CDs are too much trouble because they take up space, and you have to spend $13 on them, then fish them out of your glove box, switch them out when they're over, etc. But my MP3 player on the phone I have to carry with me anyway, "skip" button on my steering wheel? Easy.

And after more than a decade of NPR, I find commercial News Radio totally intolerable. I get that they have to have a big spot load to pay for the format - all those reporters, and so forth, but listening to that mess is just masochistic.

 

[davideduardo]

Agreed. I'm sure Mr. Eduardo would say I was not the kind of person advertisers are looking for anyway - but I used to default to radio because listening was fun when they let good DJs talk, and it was easy. But once the music stations became nothing more than jukeboxes...with play lists about half as long as the average juke box, I lost interest.

Remember that radio was pronounced dead when TV came on the scene... until some guy in Omaha decided that they could play a few of the most popular songs from "an average juke box" over and over. What Todd Storz did on KOWH went on to "save" the entire radio industry.

Occasionally we forget, as an industry, that people for the most part want to hear their favorite music on the radio.

 

[landtuna]

Radio and television are mass media, and the masses have never been bothered sufficiently by celebrity news, repetition of songs they love, or even advertising to change their listening and viewing habits. The stupider and more gullible the consumer, the easier to sell that consumer a product. You can't work in the marketing or advertising business without a healthy contempt for the end user of the item you're trying to push.

I cannot disagree with a thing you said.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

Occasionally we forget, as an industry, that people for the most part want to hear their favorite music on the radio.

I bet that is true even for people over the age of 49 or 54.

 

[landtuna]

Remember that radio was pronounced dead when TV came on the scene... until some guy in Omaha decided that they could play a few of the most popular songs from "an average juke box" over and over. What Todd Storz did on KOWH went on to "save" the entire radio industry.

Occasionally we forget, as an industry, that people for the most part want to hear their favorite music on the radio.

Many "pronouncements" since the beginning of time have been proved not only incorrect but asinine over time. The pronouncement you refer to also predicted the demise of motion pictures as well and we all know now how both turned out. Granted, both movies and radio had to make some pretty large changes to prevent their demise but that is called adaptation and happens continually in virtually every industry in the world - or they simply cease to exist.

While it is true that Top-40 radio had a short playlist it is also true that songs reaching the very top didn't tend to remain there for very long so there was some considerable churn as new music replaced old in a matter of a week or two.

Before the advent of the "new music radio" (long and frequent stopsets, DJ's who were just announcers) there were verifiable comics on the air who could genuinely entertain with jokes, sound effects and stories about the music and artists they played. There were TOH headlines, time and temp and commercials that didn't last for 5-6 solid minutes. Those are pretty much all gone now. The music sucks. There is little imagination in what the DJ's present. No news generally. And way too many lengthly stopsets. Radio has killed itself in my world so I no longer listen. There are simply too many other ways to listen to the music I want to hear without all the BS I don't. And I must not be alone in my thinking because the people I see walking around with headphones are not listening to radio either. Just a small collection of old farts who commute to work in their cars and cannot figure out how to create their own playlists.

The youth of yesteryear used to be wrapped around Top-40 radio. Not any longer.

 

[michael hagerty]

And I must not be alone in my thinking because the people I see walking around with headphones are not listening to radio either. Just a small collection of old farts who commute to work in their cars and cannot figure out how to create their own playlists.

Tuna: If they're wearing headphones, you don't know what they're listening to.

 

[mohawk82]

I've worn headphones everyday for 14 years. I only listen to podcasts.

 

[michael hagerty]

I've worn headphones everyday for 14 years. I only listen to podcasts.

Which proves....what?

It can't prove that everyone's like you, because we know that people also wear headphones to listen to audiobooks, music playlists, language instruction and....radio.

 

[davideduardo]

While it is true that Top-40 radio had a short playlist it is also true that songs reaching the very top didn't tend to remain there for very long so there was some considerable churn as new music replaced old in a matter of a week or two.

Not really. The cycle generally was around 12 to 15 weeks for most songs to debut, climb, decline and disappear. In part, this was pushed by the record companies that wanted the "next" single to be promoted as the old one declined. But it was also radio that looked at sales, juke box play and later callout research and saw that this was the average or normal cycle of songs.

Before the advent of the "new music radio" (long and frequent stopsets, DJ's who were just announcers) there were verifiable comics on the air who could genuinely entertain with jokes, sound effects and stories about the music and artists they played. There were TOH headlines, time and temp and commercials that didn't last for 5-6 solid minutes. Those are pretty much all gone now.

And that's because, in the ages radio can sell to advertisers, that's not a winning formula any more. Listeners don't want a "friend on the radio" as they have interaction with friends on Facebook and via texting and all the other social media apps. They get targeted news and gossip and music updates as they break, and it's all old news by the time it hits local radio unless it's a show like Ryan Seacrest's where the artists actually appear or where he has insider info that is exclusive.

As to stopsets, the current structure is based on what works best in the ratings. You may not like it but it works.

The music sucks.

In your opinion. I find it much better than, I believe, any other period in time.

Radio has killed itself in my world so I no longer listen.

And it's not that radio does not want you; you are welcome to listen. But you are in an age group that is of zero value to a radio station in its business function. So stations can not afford to care about what you like or dislike.

There are simply too many other ways to listen to the music I want to hear without all the BS I don't.

Again, you can't expect radio to do things you like as you are not in any way part of their target audience.

The youth of yesteryear used to be wrapped around Top-40 radio. Not any longer.

We all have a variety of new entertainment options, and we share time with them differently.

Using Phoenix as an example, an average of around 90% of all teens listen to the radio weekly and they listen 5 to 6 hours a week (teens are seasonal, due to school and such). And this is all the more amazing since it has been decades since any station targeted teens specifically as there is no ad money out there against teens.

18 to 34 year olds listen on average 9 hours and over 90% listen weekly.

 

[davideduardo]

Which proves....what?

It proves that this is one of the more resilient threads of late. Not quite a rival to the Phoenix "Lamptimer" thread, yet.

The thread has become sort of a "state of radio" discussion, which is kinda' fun.

What's amazing is the amount of purely wrong information about radio usage... as well as about its history.

 

[gr8oldies]

Spend a day in Old Radio Guy Facebook groups.....the misinformation is unbelievable

 

[radio128]

Spend a day in Old Radio Guy Facebook groups.....the misinformation is unbelievable

What type of misinformation?

 

[KeithE4]

Also worth noting that the format was not called "Smooth Jazz" when it started. It was new age and, soon, R&R called it "New Adult Contemporary" or NAC.

The smooth jazz name came about when Pyramid did not want to license "The Wave" when getting ready to launch WNUA in Chicago. They did one-on-one interviews, playing sample pods of the new format. Respondents were asked to describe, in their own words, what they heard. In one interview, a listener said that the music was "... like smooth jazz..."

The perception became reality, as Pyramid adopted that term as its positioner after testing it "in context" with the music. Target listeners liked the term, and found it to be pleasing and somewhat aspirational... not reflective of ordinary radio stations. The word "smooth" nicely justified the generally softer tempo of the station, without saying that it was "mellow" or "soft".

The adoption of the term in Chicago was orchestrated by Owen Leach, co-creator of the original format at KTWV along with Frank Cody and a team of other pros. The name got picked up by other stations and the trades quite quickly.

But the format never set out to be "jazz" at all. It was more Yanni at the beginning in what one consultant dismissed at an NAB AC seminar as "songs you've never heard by artists you've never heard of".

IIRC, the WNUA call letters originally stood for "New (or Nu) Age, but that term only lasted for a year or so. Those of us in Chicago who preferred real jazz, such as what WBEZ aired at the time, called it "yuppie elevator music."

 

[davideduardo]

IIRC, the WNUA call letters originally stood for "New (or Nu) Age, but that term only lasted for a year or so. Those of us in Chicago who preferred real jazz, such as what WBEZ aired at the time, called it "yuppie elevator music."

Unfortunately, WBEZ got about half or less of the shares that WNUA got.

Up until the transition to PPM, WNUA did very, very well in the market with a format that was quite economical to run.

 

[mohawk82]

Which proves....what?





It proves EXACTLY what YOU said to Landtuna.

Tuna: If they're wearing headphones, you don't know what they're listening to.

 

[LKellerIII]

IIRC, the WNUA call letters originally stood for "New (or Nu) Age, but that term only lasted for a year or so. Those of us in Chicago who preferred real jazz, such as what WBEZ aired at the time, called it "yuppie elevator music."

That's what all the "real" jazz listeners in the Bay Area called "Smooth Jazz" KKSF...Yuppie Elevator Music.