B96 WBBM-FM Rhythmic Gold-Leaning Top 40?

[pumpin73]

Music tests (which are not "surveys") can cover as many as 1,200 songs for deep library formats like Jack. Many will not "pass the test" but no programmer is discarding songs based on personal preferences.

Consultants don't do music tests. They may recommend a research company, but they don't do the test. They may conference with the PD and station's company format specialist or national PD, but there is no place for "skewing" test results song by song.

Yes, that happens. Songs that were huge "back in the day" can be hot, medium or cold today. There is no predictability other than asking listeners a couple of times a year how much they want to hear the song today.

A "focus group" is not used to test music. A focus group is about 8 to 12 people who chat with a moderator about things like station perception, things they like or dislike in the morning show, and so on.

A music test, mostly done online, has about 100 people who are professionally recruited score "hooks" of between 300 and over 1,000 songs as to how much they'd like to hear the song today.

Recruiting is done by research recruiters who work locally to find people that the station and the research company have decided they want to have in the project. Generally, they are heavier station listeners, and inside the core target demos. They are balanced within that group for demographic, gender and even ethnic groups.

Depending on the market, a recruiter will be paid around $100 to $150 per person for recruiting, and each participant may get $80 to $200 to score the songs. A total test can cost $20,000 up to $35,000.

If you are in, let's say, LA, with 10 million people over age 18, a station may do a music test twice a year with 100 people each. You do the math. Your chances of being recruited by any station that does local testing are about once every 80 years or so.

By the way, I've done huge tests of over 400 people, and then extracted many sets of 100 at random. Once you get over 80 correctly recruited people, there is no gain in accuracy from adding more respondents as long as the recruiting is done correctly. But that 400 person test costs four times as much... almost $100,000 and no station can afford that if 100 or less yields the same results.

But if you are only surveying 100 people twice a year, that isn't a fair representation of thousands of listeners. That isn't even half of station's average listening audience.

 

[pumpin73]

Speaking as an Oldies fan, I've been listening to and enjoying the same 50's, 60's and 70's songs for years; ever since the days they were played on 104.3, and now from web streams and my own music collection.

I am not saying don't play these songs at all. What I mean is there are other songs from that era which were hits (maybe not top 10), but they were hits.

 

[pumpin73]

It's just you.

There is a finite number of songs in any format that all listeners want to hear and few of them dislike. You can not make the mountain taller. You just approach it from different angles and perspectives each time.

I guess I am strange because I want to hear some DIFFERENT hits besides the same thing over and over.

 

[pumpin73]

Music tests (which are not "surveys") can cover as many as 1,200 songs for deep library formats like Jack. Many will not "pass the test" but no programmer is discarding songs based on personal preferences.

Consultants don't do music tests. They may recommend a research company, but they don't do the test. They may conference with the PD and station's company format specialist or national PD, but there is no place for "skewing" test results song by song.

Yes, that happens. Songs that were huge "back in the day" can be hot, medium or cold today. There is no predictability other than asking listeners a couple of times a year how much they want to hear the song today.

A "focus group" is not used to test music. A focus group is about 8 to 12 people who chat with a moderator about things like station perception, things they like or dislike in the morning show, and so on.

A music test, mostly done online, has about 100 people who are professionally recruited score "hooks" of between 300 and over 1,000 songs as to how much they'd like to hear the song today.

Recruiting is done by research recruiters who work locally to find people that the station and the research company have decided they want to have in the project. Generally, they are heavier station listeners, and inside the core target demos. They are balanced within that group for demographic, gender and even ethnic groups.

Depending on the market, a recruiter will be paid around $100 to $150 per person for recruiting, and each participant may get $80 to $200 to score the songs. A total test can cost $20,000 up to $35,000.

If you are in, let's say, LA, with 10 million people over age 18, a station may do a music test twice a year with 100 people each. You do the math. Your chances of being recruited by any station that does local testing are about once every 80 years or so.

By the way, I've done huge tests of over 400 people, and then extracted many sets of 100 at random. Once you get over 80 correctly recruited people, there is no gain in accuracy from adding more respondents as long as the recruiting is done correctly. But that 400 person test costs four times as much... almost $100,000 and no station can afford that if 100 or less yields the same results.

Focus groups, Music tests, tomato, tomato, same difference.

 

[TheBigA]

But if you are only surveying 100 people twice a year, that isn't a fair representation of thousands of listeners. That isn't even half of station's average listening audience.

In most genres, the music industry does their own research. So if you feel the research done by radio isn't representative, it's up to the music industry to present their own research on those listeners.

 

[pumpin73]

Things change. So now they're Hot AC. Radio isn't in the music distribution business. If the format isn't working, you change.

The music business used to be more involved. They're not any more. Especially in classic formats.

When you say "classic formats" are you meaning previous formats or are you meaning classic hits? Sorry, I think they should have stayed rhythmic. If they had maybe their listenership wouldn't have gone down. That's my story and I am sticking to it. Programmers and station owners don't always get it right. They are human just like everyone else.

 

[TheBigA]

When you say "classic formats" are you meaning previous formats or are you meaning classic hits?

Classic rock, classic hits, adult hits. The radio formats that don't play currents.

I think they should have stayed rhythmic. If they had maybe their listenership wouldn't have gone down. That's my story and I am sticking to it. Programmers and station owners don't always get it right. They are human just like everyone else.

What are you basing your opinion on? It's all about basis. Radio stations make their decisions based on revenue. They know how much money they were making before, and now. The profit motivation is their basis. What is your basis? It need to be more than personal taste and opinion. We need to see factual numbers.

 

[TheBigA]

I guess I am strange because I want to hear some DIFFERENT hits besides the same thing over and over.

You have that option. Subscribe to a music service where you get what you want. Then your listenership to those songs become part of the streaming charts, and they can be used to justify radio airplay of those songs. However, you should know that most people aren't like you, and they tend to stream the same songs radio is playing. That's why radio plays those songs.

 

[tall_guy1]

You have that option. Subscribe to a music service where you get what you want. Then your listenership to those songs become part of the streaming charts, and they can be used to justify radio airplay of those songs. However, you should know that most people aren't like you, and they tend to stream the same songs radio is playing. That's why radio plays those songs.

Maybe streaming factors in, but it seems like at least in KC the stations are more reluctant to play hits that could potentially be smaller. For example, the Matchbox 20 song She's So Mean and Secrets by Mary Lambert got decent airplay even in the daytime a decade ago (which didn't become big hits), but these days they really only play songs that become bigger.

 

[TheBigA]

but these days they really only play songs that become bigger.

That's the point. Radio is the free sample. You get the big hits, and hopefully that'll get you to buy the deep cuts.

Radio is not in the music distribution business.

 

[tall_guy1]

That's the point. Radio is the free sample. You get the big hits, and hopefully that'll get you to buy the deep cuts.

Radio is not in the music distribution business.

My point is, for some reason, in 2013 there were more songs in power/medium rotation and in daytime hours (even ones that fizzled out quickly like the two I mentioned), but I can only speak for Kansas City though perhaps they thought they wouldn't cause tune out. I know they don't want tune out, but it seems like they really go the extra mile to play it safe/play bigger hits in 2023 vs a decade or so ago.

 

[JackindaBox]

It isn’t a classic format but it definitely isn’t CHR if they are playing a lot of 90s and 2K music cause CHR is mostly current/recurrent based music.

 

[tall_guy1]

You have that option. Subscribe to a music service where you get what you want. Then your listenership to those songs become part of the streaming charts, and they can be used to justify radio airplay of those songs. However, you should know that most people aren't like you, and they tend to stream the same songs radio is playing. That's why radio plays those songs.

Might some songs be oversaturated though? There are some stations that play them that people go to for them but 3 or 4 other stations that play it (for example) which are lower? For example, if Somebody Told Me by The Killers tests well and is on alternative, adult hits, Hot AC, and rock, wouldn't it be wise for the lowest rated of them to back off it? While it tests well, it seems like they are all reaching for the same piece of pie. It would be like if in November 5 different stations played "The Wizard of Oz."

 

[davideduardo]

I guess I am strange because I want to hear some DIFFERENT hits besides the same thing over and over.

And that is not what drives one-for-many broadcast radio.

 

[davideduardo]

Might some songs be oversaturated though? There are some stations that play them that people go to for them but 3 or 4 other stations that play it (for example) which are lower? For example, if Somebody Told Me by The Killers tests well and is on alternative, adult hits, Hot AC, and rock, wouldn't it be wise for the lowest rated of them to back off it? While it tests well, it seems like they are all reaching for the same piece of pie. It would be like if in November 5 different stations played "The Wizard of Oz."

Overplay is discovered in music tests, and stations scale back or quit play of those songs.

All these things you keep asking have been the concerns of program directors of music radio stations going back about 70 years.

You know the first Top 40 station started in Omaha around 1961. They used jukebox plays as their research, and then moved on to record store sales.

Each station's music test picks up the effects of shared listening... the average person uses 5 to 6 stations each week.

 

[tall_guy1]

Overplay is discovered in music tests, and stations scale back or quit play of those songs.

All these things you keep asking have been the concerns of program directors of music radio stations going back about 70 years.

You know the first Top 40 station started in Omaha around 1961. They used jukebox plays as their research, and then moved on to record store sales.

Each station's music test picks up the effects of shared listening... the average person uses 5 to 6 stations each week.

That's interesting they used jukebox plays. That would probably be wise, as sometimes it is not one station doing the overplaying but in combination with the other stations it feels like overkill.

 

[TheBigA]

For example, if Somebody Told Me by The Killers tests well and is on alternative, adult hits, Hot AC, and rock, wouldn't it be wise for the lowest rated of them to back off it?

There is no song by The Killers that has ever charted in AC, Hot AC, adult hits, or rock. Somebody Told Me peaked at #51 in the Hot 100, so I doubt very much it would get any play anywhere but alternative.

 

[davideduardo]

That's interesting they used jukebox plays. That would probably be wise, as sometimes it is not one station doing the overplaying but in combination with the other stations it feels like overkill.

When KOWH used jukebox plays as a popularity gauge, they were the only all-music station in the market. In fact, they were, for a while, the only all Top 40 / all music station in the country... in the Hemisphere... in the world!

KOWH Omaha: The birth of American's First Top 40 station

Todd Storz is credited with the creation of the Top 40 radio format in 1952 at KOWH in Omaha, Nebraska. This is the story of how Mr Storz created a new type of radio and it includes an audio history.

worldradiohistory.com

 

[tall_guy1]

There is no song by The Killers that has ever charted in AC, Hot AC, adult hits, or rock. Somebody Told Me peaked at #51 in the Hot 100, so I doubt very much it would get any play anywhere but alternative.

The Killers Not according to this.

 

[TheBigA]

The Killers Not according to this.

That's not the Hot 100. Why would anyone play a band that has no #1s in any chart except alternative?