Beatles - 50th Anniversary

[TheFonz]

The other factor is that American audiences apparently tended to like albums that actually contained the songs that were released as singles........

Part of the reason for that is because the LP versions of those singles were available in STEREO (or what passed for stereo at the time). Most stereo singles didn't appear until later in the '60s.

 

[Avid Listener]

Part of the reason for that is because the LP versions of those singles were available in STEREO (or what passed for stereo at the time). Most stereo singles didn't appear until later in the '60s.

That's an excellent observation, and one that not enough people consider when looking at why many people who liked music preferred albums over singles.

 

[davideduardo]

Radio pleased plenty of people in the 60's and 70's. Then in came focus groups

That's not true.

First, though, focus groups are not used to select the songs to play. Perhaps the lack of understanding of how music is really tested is why you think research is bad.

Auditorium Music Tests were developed in the 70's to replace the no-longer viable singles sales and jukebox data. When Top 40 was pretty much the only option for the under-40 group, singles sales were a good indicator. But when formats fragmented and singles were being phased out, record sales no longer could be attributed to one specific station.

,The reason why people aren't particular to the music played today is that it was focused grouped. You end up playing exactly what the focus group likes, which probably has little or no relationship to the vast majority of listeners.

Actually, the participants in a music test are a proportional, stratified representation of a station and its format's audience. They are professionally recruited using the most up to date sampling techniques.

You want to justify a hip-hop polka oldies format? Just hire the right bozos as your test subjects for the focus group and guess what? The pre-determined outcome will tell you that hip-hop polka oldies is the "next big thing".

That's not at all true. A music test is conducted to determine which songs listeners to your format and your station like and which ones they don't.

As long as you cover your a__ and have the results of the focus group in a slicky bound powerpoint presentation printout, you are golden.

A station would never publicly present its proprietary research in public. That idea is as absurd as Coke "selling" to supermarkets by showing them the secret formula.

You think satellite, Pandora, or iPods are easy to use in a car? Lots of time spent futzing around - and it probably creates safety issues.

Funny. I can tell my cars' audio systems which satellite channel I want to hear, and what stream I want to listen to. it's just as simple as asking it to tune to preset. And when traveling between individual OTA station coverage areas, it's actually easier to use satellite and streams.

As the 70's progressed, and the last stations became "professional" and "focused", the popularity of music radio crashed completely and you still didn't heed the warning as talk radio began to take over.

In fact, listening to music radio grew in the 70's and 80's as FM provided more format options and formats more specific to individual audience subsets.

The classic example is the Top 40's listener from the 50's and 60's who had to put up with a high percentage of unlikable songs because the format was so broad. By the 70's we had formats that were specific to the subsets of that broad audience and people listened more.

The nail in the coffin was the internet with streaming audio, portable music players, satellite.

You are confusing distribution methods with stations. Most stations have growing streaming audiences and most know that AM and FM will not be the reception method of choice some time in the future.

 

[oldies76]

That's not true.

First, though, focus groups are not used to select the songs to play. Perhaps the lack of understanding of how music is really tested is why you think research is bad.

Auditorium Music Tests were developed in the 70's to replace the no-longer viable singles sales and jukebox data. When Top 40 was pretty much the only option for the under-40 group, singles sales were a good indicator. But when formats fragmented and singles were being phased out, record sales no longer could be attributed to one specific station.

duplicate post...deleted

 

[oldies76]

Big A, reading all your previous posts (I've stayed away, until now). You are a bit out of touch with what listeners really want to hear and expect on the radio and it isn't just the Beatles music. But I expect that from one who's in the biz and not a casual listener, who wants their hits and favorites. Big A, it's 2014 and frankly, time will running out eventually on ALL the 60's, 70's and 80's music anyways, so why not just play them all (for oldtimes sake and a last hurrah...)....before the demos shift again and nothing but 90's and 00's will be blasting away from your local classics hits radio....ala KRTH.

Life is short.......

 

[davideduardo]

duplicate post...deleted

So where is the original?

 

[TheBigA]

You are a bit out of touch with what listeners really want to hear

I disagree with your assessment. So does my employer.

 

[oldies76]

So where is the original?

Just a generic phrase, to say I cancelled out my short response. Basically, it's tiresome (for 6 years now..) trying to repeat relevant ideas, when I know you'll disagree again.

 

[oldies76]

I disagree with your assessment. So does my employer.

If you really only knew........Radio is becoming unlistenable at times........and as a music fan (as well)....you know it.

 

[Avid Listener]

I suspect the problem is that station operators who cling to the old 20th century concepts, like a narrow range of tightly defined formats as the only way to do radio manage to create stations geared only to the people who happen to like what they offer. By only broadcasting their tired, tight formats with the boring little playlists, they end up accumulating a small cadre of listeners who like their output. They continually test those same people who already like what the station is putting out, and so their dying ideas are constantly re-affirmed. But gradually, as listeners finally get bored and drift away, those drifted away listeners are no longer consulted for research. As long as research can be found to confirm their preconceived notions, they'll continue to pat themselves on the back as the total audience for conventional broadcast radio gets smaller and smaller and smaller. No on likes it when someone points out that the Emperor has no clothes, especially the naked emperor! So, those who were achieving success in the 1990's by using the techniques of the 70's and 80's will point to their experience as proof that those old ideas are still valid in the teens of the 21st century.

 

[TheBigA]

If you really only knew........Radio is becoming unlistenable at times........and as a music fan (as well)....you know it.

Here's what I know: There are some stations that play a wide range of oldies, and they tend to get smaller shares than those that are more focused. This is also true in classic country. Right now, classic country stations are mainly playing 80s & 90s hits. No 60s or 70s. Those that venture to the older stuff get lower ratings than those that play more recent music. I've been in radio since I was a teenager, and I learned a long time ago not to program for what I like. I do that when I go home. My work time is building successful stations that get ratings and attract advertisers. The other thing I know is that the serious music fans have been complaining for a long time about the Sirius music channels. The fact that subscribers are threatening to drop Sirius when they have far more music channels than OTA radio says a lot to me.

 

[TheBigA]

I suspect the problem is that station operators who cling to the old 20th century concepts, like a narrow range of tightly defined formats as the only way to do radio manage to create stations geared only to the people who happen to like what they offer.

I don't think anyone is "clinging" to that idea. To be honest, no one I know has any reason to stick with any format unless it's successful. No one I know programs radio stations based on "pre-conceived notions." We're all looking for more information, and more ways to do things. We all go to conferences and read lots of studies that tell us the latest in what our audiences want. One thing I've been seeing is a growth in "mix" formats, those that incorporate other genres and styles. I've talked about it in other threads. One alternative rock fan was talking about bands who cross-over into Hot AC, for example. Or southern rock bands who cross into country. The reason this happens is because modern formats are becoming broader in terms of the styles they incorporate. But this particular thread is 60s/70s pop. That's a pretty narrowly defined format, as defined by the stations that made those songs popular in the first place. There's really no real room to incorporate other genres or new releases. And this format succeeds with radio listeners because it stays the course and doesn't do what more modern formats do. The audience wants to hear the songs they heard with the presentation they heard when those songs were new. The audience itself sets the definitions of this format, not any programmer.

As I've said, anyone who depends on someone else to create a music list, whether it's OTA radio, Sirius, or Pandora, will get a music list that is based on some form of research. Like it or not, that's how things are done. If you don't like research, your only choice is to make your own song lists, and that takes time. Most people have jobs, families, lives, and lots of other things to do besides make music lists. It's those people who listen to radio.

 

[oldies76]

I've been in radio since I was a teenager, and I learned a long time ago not to program for what I like.

Of course, you are programming to what the listeners like. But my argument is that the listeners like far more than what's being presented. They like variety and selection, not daily and weekly re-runs.

The other thing I know is that the serious music fans have been complaining for a long time about the Sirius music channels. The fact that subscribers are threatening to drop Sirius when they have far more music channels than OTA radio says a lot to me.

Could it be because of presentation, subscription cost, DJ chatter, too many spots, song repetition?? Frankly I would not pay a monthly fee to hear repetition, when radio does it for free. If I'm going to pay a fee (especially as an oldies fan), I better get my money's worth and not a copycat of a typical classic hits station's presentation.

The amount of music channels is somewhat irrelevant, since classic hits listeners and fans will focus mainly on the decades channels and not too much on the other stations that don't interest them.

As for actual music selection, their selections should surpass any OTA classic hits station by hundreds of songs. And they have AT40 reruns and other specials as well that fans should enjoy. If they don't, then it's a mystery.

Check out these discussions: http://xmfan.com/viewforum.php?f=22

 

[TheBigA]

Of course, you are programming to what the listeners like. But my argument is that the listeners like far more than what's being presented. They like variety and selection, not daily and weekly re-runs

SOME listeners like more than what's presented. We have done numerous surveys, year in and year out, and the number of those listeners is small. So small that we're willing to lose them, in order to keep the larger majority happy. As I said in another thread, if you want more variety, just change the station. Tune in a CHR station for an hour. Or an Urban station. You'll hear lots of variety. That's what those formats do. There's a whole world of music outside of 60s/70s pop. If you truly want musical variety, that's what you should do.

 

[davideduardo]

I suspect the problem is that station operators who cling to the old 20th century concepts, like a narrow range of tightly defined formats as the only way to do radio manage to create stations geared only to the people who happen to like what they offer.

You'd be surprised how sophisticated the methods radio has to find out what listeners want. And the amount of money spent on research to make those determinations. Neither the methods nor the mentality is dated... but it is adapted to the realization that OTA radio is a push model, and can not compete with pull models. So stations have to do what is best in a one-for-many arena and they have to do what increases ratings and builds or retains revenue.

In fact, one of the big changes in the Internet era is that listeners have discovered they can get customized streams or playlists, so they are even less tolerant of songs that they don't like or even ones that they neither like nor dislike.

By only broadcasting their tired, tight formats with the boring little playlists, they end up accumulating a small cadre of listeners who like their output.

When several NYC stations reach over 3 million people every week and one reaches 30% of the market and over 4 million people, I find it hard to read that someone really believes that we are dealing with "small cadres" of listeners.

They continually test those same people who already like what the station is putting out, and so their dying ideas are constantly re-affirmed.

No, they actually test people who like the general kind of music a station plays and who actually use radio. While a significant percentage of those recruited will also be partisans of the station paying for the research, part of the purpose of a music test is to insure that a stations does not research an ever-narrowing base.

But gradually, as listeners finally get bored and drift away, those drifted away listeners are no longer consulted for research.

First, you have an exaggerated idea of how many listeners are "drifting off". And you don't understand that stations purposely research beyond just the core listeners to pull as many fish into the net as possible.

As long as research can be found to confirm their preconceived notions, they'll continue to pat themselves on the back as the total audience for conventional broadcast radio gets smaller and smaller and smaller.

You are missing various points here.

First, "conventional radio" is migrating to new media distribution and developing new products in the process. It really does not matter how people receive us.

Second, the audience is not getting smaller. It is listening less, but it is only very slightly smaller than it was back in the 70's and 80's. As to lessened time spent listening, that is attributed in part to having many more entertainment options and to a large part, too, to the change in ratings methodology in the major markets which of itself reduced TSL by over 30%.

No on likes it when someone points out that the Emperor has no clothes, especially the naked emperor! So, those who were achieving success in the 1990's by using the techniques of the 70's and 80's will point to their experience as proof that those old ideas are still valid in the teens of the 21st century.

You are soooooo off the real track there. Stations have been changing their practices and techniques constantly over the decades. As ratings methodologies change, stations adapt. As musical tastes change, stations adapt.

 

[oldies76]

First, you have an exaggerated idea of how many listeners are "drifting off". And you don't understand that stations purposely research beyond just the core listeners to pull as many fish into the net as possible.

When listeners dislike any song (a tested or likewise)....they will drift off. When they hear seemingly endless block spots, they'll drift off, when they tune in and hear a song, they've heard for the xxx time, this year, they will drift off. When they realize, that they were not the 9th caller and someone else wins the prize, they really wanted, they will drift off.

And finally, when they are not hearing songs that they like or have requested and are not heard.....they will indeed drift off.

A basic concept and reality, you guys have not realized.....over and over.

Your goal is to "Keep the Customer Satisfied".... They will "Drift Away" if they are not.

 

[TheBigA]

Your goal is to "Keep the Customer Satisfied".... They will "Drift Away" if they are not.

That's assuming all listeners operate in a black & white, on & off system. They don't. The reality is that most listeners are somewhere in the middle, between paying attention, and not. In the ratings, they are counted equally. Let me say that again: It doesn't matter to the PPM device if the listener is paying attention, or drifting away, as long as the station is on. That's a very different goal to achieve than "keeping the customer satisfied." What the listener is doing while the station is on is unimportant. Just as long as they tune in. And they tune in for the brand of what that station does. We see this over and over again. And the way to ensure this is to make sure the station is playing the hits whenever the listener tunes in. The rest is unimportant to the goal of having the radio station on in the first place.

Once again, you're assuming most listeners are like you, and they're not. We have very solid evidence that the examples you give about how listeners react to the radio are not common. They represent how YOU behave, but not how most people behave. And that's a big difference. As I said earlier, we know we're never going to make people like you happy, and we're fine with that. Every time we play a song you don't like, or a song you're tired of, you're going to complain. Most people aren't like that. They don't listen that critically. So we have a choice: We can try and keep you happy, and constantly fail, or we can aim at the broader spectrum of listeners, and get them to tune in. We choose the latter, and as a result, our stations remain successful.

 

[davideduardo]

They will "Drift Away"...

Dobie Gray or Uncle Cracker?

 

[TheFonz]

Your goal is to "Keep the Customer Satisfied".... They will "Drift Away" if they are not.

Aaah.................but the customer is the advertiser, not the listener.

 

[TheBigA]

Aaah.................but the customer is the advertiser, not the listener.

It's actually both. You can't have one without the other.