J
JoeyWeston
Guest
This song has been on the charts since Aug of last year, and its still on the charts at 13. Its amazing! Has anyone ever done this before in CCM Radio?
-
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
> This song has been on the charts since Aug of last year, and
> its still on the charts at 13. Its amazing! Has anyone
> ever done this before in CCM Radio?
>
point of grace
bob carlisle
its called christian radio..repeat the same songs over and over again..it works but man is it boring!! and so is that song
theres this song called i can only imagine..it debuted like 3 or 4 years ago..they havent stopped playing it to this day!!! someone please put that song is the rest category..for 10 years!!<P ID="signature">______________
note to the NAB..satellite radio..its worth paying for!!</P>
> its still on the charts at 13. Its amazing! Has anyone
> ever done this before in CCM Radio?
>
point of grace
bob carlisle
its called christian radio..repeat the same songs over and over again..it works but man is it boring!! and so is that song
theres this song called i can only imagine..it debuted like 3 or 4 years ago..they havent stopped playing it to this day!!! someone please put that song is the rest category..for 10 years!!<P ID="signature">______________
note to the NAB..satellite radio..its worth paying for!!</P>
R
radioelizabeth
Guest
smashed cd wrote:
"This song has been on the charts since Aug of last year,"its called christian radio..repeat the same songs over and over again..it works but man is it boring!! and so is that song...theres this song called i can only imagine..it debuted like 3 or 4 years ago..they havent stopped playing it to this day!!! someone please put that song is the rest category..for 10 years!!"
Why would you put a hit song in rest? Why put a song that resonates with your listeners out of rotation? Why would you pull a song that is doing so well?
It's not called "Christian radio".
It's called RADIO.
And for the examples listed...it's called GREAT RADIO.
<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
"This song has been on the charts since Aug of last year,"its called christian radio..repeat the same songs over and over again..it works but man is it boring!! and so is that song
...theres this song called i can only imagine..it debuted like 3 or 4 years ago..they havent stopped playing it to this day!!! someone please put that song is the rest category..for 10 years!!" Why would you put a hit song in rest? Why put a song that resonates with your listeners out of rotation? Why would you pull a song that is doing so well?
It's not called "Christian radio".
It's called RADIO.
And for the examples listed...it's called GREAT RADIO.
<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
> smashed cd wrote:
> "This song has been on the charts since Aug of last
> year,"its called christian radio..repeat the same songs over
> and over again..it works but man is it boring!! and so is
> that song...theres this song called i can only
> imagine..it debuted like 3 or 4 years ago..they havent
> stopped playing it to this day!!! someone please put that
> song is the rest category..for 10 years!!"
>
> Why would you put a hit song in rest? Why put a song that
> resonates with your listeners out of rotation? Why would you
> pull a song that is doing so well?
>
> It's not called "Christian radio".
>
> It's called RADIO.
>
> And for the examples listed...it's called GREAT RADIO.
e i was only stating my opinion..i dont listen anyway..i didnt mean to upset you..i just dont like the song..
>
<P ID="signature">______________
note to the NAB..satellite radio..its worth paying for!!</P>
> "This song has been on the charts since Aug of last
> year,"its called christian radio..repeat the same songs over
> and over again..it works but man is it boring!! and so is
> that song
...theres this song called i can only> imagine..it debuted like 3 or 4 years ago..they havent
> stopped playing it to this day!!! someone please put that
> song is the rest category..for 10 years!!"
>
> Why would you put a hit song in rest? Why put a song that
> resonates with your listeners out of rotation? Why would you
> pull a song that is doing so well?
>
> It's not called "Christian radio".
>
> It's called RADIO.
>
> And for the examples listed...it's called GREAT RADIO.
e i was only stating my opinion..i dont listen anyway..i didnt mean to upset you..i just dont like the song..
>
<P ID="signature">______________
note to the NAB..satellite radio..its worth paying for!!</P>
R
radioelizabeth
Guest
" e i was only stating my opinion..i dont listen anyway..i didnt mean to upset you..i just dont like the song.."
I'm not upset.
Just adding the program aspect to the rational.
<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
I'm not upset.
Just adding the program aspect to the rational.
<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
> " e i was only stating my opinion..i dont listen anyway..i
> didnt mean to upset you..i just dont like the song.."
>
> I'm not upset.
>
> Just adding the program aspect to the rational.
>
>
>
works for me..currently listing to u2<P ID="signature">______________
note to the NAB..satellite radio..its worth paying for!!</P>
> didnt mean to upset you..i just dont like the song.."
>
> I'm not upset.
>
> Just adding the program aspect to the rational.
>
>
>
works for me..currently listing to u2
<P ID="signature">______________note to the NAB..satellite radio..its worth paying for!!</P>
A
audiomax
Guest
> smashed cd wrote:
> "This song has been on the charts since Aug of last
> year,"its called christian radio..repeat the same songs over
> and over again..it works but man is it boring!! and so is
> that song...theres this song called i can only
> imagine..it debuted like 3 or 4 years ago..they havent
> stopped playing it to this day!!! someone please put that
> song is the rest category..for 10 years!!"
>
> Why would you put a hit song in rest? Why put a song that
> resonates with your listeners out of rotation? Why would you
> pull a song that is doing so well?
>
> It's not called "Christian radio".
>
> It's called RADIO.
>
> And for the examples listed...it's called GREAT RADIO.
>
Great radio? What kind of share does that endless repetition get you? A 2 or 3 share among women? That's because radio programmers (the corporate ones--we suspect that local ones seldom have any power...) coddle the listener--patronizing her by fearing that she may not like a new song. New songs can resonate too. I seldom listen to my own station outside of my daypart because of the EXTREMELY limited playlist, and very tight rotation.
Mainstream radio uses rest categories very effectively. I was listening to the CHR station in our market and stopped on a song that I recognized but could not place. It was the Jessica Simpson song from what, two years ago...? "With You" is the name. At the end of its run as a hit, I would change the station if it came on...but now, it was nice to hear it--it had been a while. I think when I listen to the radio in the car, when I am running errands or whatever, I use radio like a typical listener, despite my involvement.
It is a shame that most stations don't go out on a limb more often, with maybe a new music feature or something that introduces new songs and artists to our audience. I am a P1 for our demo, and I end up going out and buying CDs and loading them on my iPod because I cannot bear to hear the same songs over and over and over ad nauseum. My husband has XM in his car for the same reason. At least with the number of channels available, there is room for some variety.
I guess what I do not understand is, what are programmers afraid of. If you are not at the top of the ratings, you do not have much to lose.
I hesitate to post on this board because I do not spend my time researching other stations in other markets. I just know what I know about my local station and my company's stations...so I am sure you all will clue me in if there is some reason behind this craziness in limiting the playlist SO MUCH.
> "This song has been on the charts since Aug of last
> year,"its called christian radio..repeat the same songs over
> and over again..it works but man is it boring!! and so is
> that song
...theres this song called i can only> imagine..it debuted like 3 or 4 years ago..they havent
> stopped playing it to this day!!! someone please put that
> song is the rest category..for 10 years!!"
>
> Why would you put a hit song in rest? Why put a song that
> resonates with your listeners out of rotation? Why would you
> pull a song that is doing so well?
>
> It's not called "Christian radio".
>
> It's called RADIO.
>
> And for the examples listed...it's called GREAT RADIO.
>
Great radio? What kind of share does that endless repetition get you? A 2 or 3 share among women? That's because radio programmers (the corporate ones--we suspect that local ones seldom have any power...) coddle the listener--patronizing her by fearing that she may not like a new song. New songs can resonate too. I seldom listen to my own station outside of my daypart because of the EXTREMELY limited playlist, and very tight rotation.
Mainstream radio uses rest categories very effectively. I was listening to the CHR station in our market and stopped on a song that I recognized but could not place. It was the Jessica Simpson song from what, two years ago...? "With You" is the name. At the end of its run as a hit, I would change the station if it came on...but now, it was nice to hear it--it had been a while. I think when I listen to the radio in the car, when I am running errands or whatever, I use radio like a typical listener, despite my involvement.
It is a shame that most stations don't go out on a limb more often, with maybe a new music feature or something that introduces new songs and artists to our audience. I am a P1 for our demo, and I end up going out and buying CDs and loading them on my iPod because I cannot bear to hear the same songs over and over and over ad nauseum. My husband has XM in his car for the same reason. At least with the number of channels available, there is room for some variety.
I guess what I do not understand is, what are programmers afraid of. If you are not at the top of the ratings, you do not have much to lose.
I hesitate to post on this board because I do not spend my time researching other stations in other markets. I just know what I know about my local station and my company's stations...so I am sure you all will clue me in if there is some reason behind this craziness in limiting the playlist SO MUCH.
N
neutral_observer
Guest
> Great radio? What kind of share does that endless repetition
> get you?
Big!
> A 2 or 3 share among women?
In a number of cases, it's five times that.
> That's because radio programmers (the corporate ones--
> we suspect that local ones seldom have any power...)
Well, "we" be wrong.
> coddle the listener--patronizing
> her by fearing that she may not like a new song.
No, that's not it at all!
It's that she -- he, they -- still love the others! Test after test, they come back as still being their favorites! What's a programmer to do?
> New songs can resonate too.
Of course, but....the other ones are still very much loved!
> I seldom listen to my own station outside
> of my daypart because of the EXTREMELY limited playlist, and
> very tight rotation.
But, on your own time, you listen to others and find pleasure easy to come by because of those very things.
> I was listening to the CHR station in our market and stopped
> on a song that I recognized but could not place. It was the
> Jessica Simpson song from what, two years ago...? "With You"
> is the name. At the end of its run as a hit, I would change
> the station if it came on...but now, it was nice to hear
> it--it had been a while. I think when I listen to the radio
> in the car, when I am running errands or whatever, I use
> radio like a typical listener, despite my involvement.
You use *other* stations like a typical listener, *not* your own. If you used your own as others do, you would find it a much less "repetitive."
That CHR, by the way, probably isn't playing more than 110-140 titles.
> It is a shame that most stations don't go out on a limb more
> often, with maybe a new music feature or something that
> introduces new songs and artists to our audience.
But they do. Most stations play a new song every hour outside of morning drive. Of course, we might want to get into the idea of what a "new" song is...
> I guess what I do not understand is, what are programmers
> afraid of.
Not getting as much listening as they could by utilizing known best practices.
> If you are not at the top of the ratings, you do
> not have much to lose.
Not true...if you're not at the top, you need every little bit you have!
Besides, it's really more of a question of getting everything that is actually available to you, not necessarily being at the top.
> I hesitate to post on this board because I do not spend my
> time researching other stations in other markets. I just
> know what I know about my local station and my company's
> stations...so I am sure you all will clue me in if there is
> some reason behind this craziness in limiting the playlist
> SO MUCH.
Sure there is...and I guess the exact answer would depend on your meaning of "SO MUCH." Songs are played often enough to semi-guarantee that the typical listener will hear his or her favorite songs some desired number of times per week.
> get you?
Big!
> A 2 or 3 share among women?
In a number of cases, it's five times that.
> That's because radio programmers (the corporate ones--
> we suspect that local ones seldom have any power...)
Well, "we" be wrong.
> coddle the listener--patronizing
> her by fearing that she may not like a new song.
No, that's not it at all!
It's that she -- he, they -- still love the others! Test after test, they come back as still being their favorites! What's a programmer to do?
> New songs can resonate too.
Of course, but....the other ones are still very much loved!
> I seldom listen to my own station outside
> of my daypart because of the EXTREMELY limited playlist, and
> very tight rotation.
But, on your own time, you listen to others and find pleasure easy to come by because of those very things.
> I was listening to the CHR station in our market and stopped
> on a song that I recognized but could not place. It was the
> Jessica Simpson song from what, two years ago...? "With You"
> is the name. At the end of its run as a hit, I would change
> the station if it came on...but now, it was nice to hear
> it--it had been a while. I think when I listen to the radio
> in the car, when I am running errands or whatever, I use
> radio like a typical listener, despite my involvement.
You use *other* stations like a typical listener, *not* your own. If you used your own as others do, you would find it a much less "repetitive."
That CHR, by the way, probably isn't playing more than 110-140 titles.
> It is a shame that most stations don't go out on a limb more
> often, with maybe a new music feature or something that
> introduces new songs and artists to our audience.
But they do. Most stations play a new song every hour outside of morning drive. Of course, we might want to get into the idea of what a "new" song is...
> I guess what I do not understand is, what are programmers
> afraid of.
Not getting as much listening as they could by utilizing known best practices.
> If you are not at the top of the ratings, you do
> not have much to lose.
Not true...if you're not at the top, you need every little bit you have!
Besides, it's really more of a question of getting everything that is actually available to you, not necessarily being at the top.
> I hesitate to post on this board because I do not spend my
> time researching other stations in other markets. I just
> know what I know about my local station and my company's
> stations...so I am sure you all will clue me in if there is
> some reason behind this craziness in limiting the playlist
> SO MUCH.
Sure there is...and I guess the exact answer would depend on your meaning of "SO MUCH." Songs are played often enough to semi-guarantee that the typical listener will hear his or her favorite songs some desired number of times per week.
N
neutral_observer
Guest
> This song has been on the charts since Aug of last year, and
> its still on the charts at 13. Its amazing! Has anyone
> ever done this before in CCM Radio?
On the charts, I don't know. In the minds of listeners, many have!
Regular people don't turn over the songs they love as much as the charts want them to. "Charts" are virtually meaningless; real monitors of stations that conduct their own research mean a lot!
> its still on the charts at 13. Its amazing! Has anyone
> ever done this before in CCM Radio?
On the charts, I don't know. In the minds of listeners, many have!
Regular people don't turn over the songs they love as much as the charts want them to. "Charts" are virtually meaningless; real monitors of stations that conduct their own research mean a lot!
R
radioelizabeth
Guest
Re: Playlist
audiomax wrote:
"Great radio? What kind of share does that endless repetition get you?"
So playing her favorite song when she wants top hear it is a strategy you oppose?
"That's because radio programmers (the corporate ones--we suspect that local ones seldom have any power...) coddle the listener--patronizing her by fearing that she may not like a new song."
Let's remember that every single getting a spin at one time was in fact a new song. It's about knowing that you play the song she likes. New or old or ancient or not.
"Mainstream radio uses rest categories very effectively."
The previous post asked that "I Can Only Imagine" be rested for the next 10 years, right away. How effective do you imagine that would be?
Certainly rest is effective. But NOT with a hit song, showing NO BURN that she WANTS to hear and is LISTENING for.
"If you are not at the top of the ratings, you do not have much to lose."
Wrong. When you are at the top you have MUCH to lose.
"so I am sure you all will clue me in if there is some reason behind this craziness in limiting the playlist SO MUCH."
Exactly what do you mean by limit? How many songs would be your preference in a typical AC library? How many of those would you make currents. How often would you spin those currents and how long before you moved them to your recurrent or trashed?
It's easy to say stations aren't broad enough with their libraries. Let's see a specific example of how that would be done and the success it shows. Even if it's just a "dream"....let's flesh it out and not just throw out assumed results.
<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
audiomax wrote:
"Great radio? What kind of share does that endless repetition get you?"
So playing her favorite song when she wants top hear it is a strategy you oppose?
"That's because radio programmers (the corporate ones--we suspect that local ones seldom have any power...) coddle the listener--patronizing her by fearing that she may not like a new song."
Let's remember that every single getting a spin at one time was in fact a new song. It's about knowing that you play the song she likes. New or old or ancient or not.
"Mainstream radio uses rest categories very effectively."
The previous post asked that "I Can Only Imagine" be rested for the next 10 years, right away. How effective do you imagine that would be?
Certainly rest is effective. But NOT with a hit song, showing NO BURN that she WANTS to hear and is LISTENING for.
"If you are not at the top of the ratings, you do not have much to lose."
Wrong. When you are at the top you have MUCH to lose.
"so I am sure you all will clue me in if there is some reason behind this craziness in limiting the playlist SO MUCH."
Exactly what do you mean by limit? How many songs would be your preference in a typical AC library? How many of those would you make currents. How often would you spin those currents and how long before you moved them to your recurrent or trashed?
It's easy to say stations aren't broad enough with their libraries. Let's see a specific example of how that would be done and the success it shows. Even if it's just a "dream"....let's flesh it out and not just throw out assumed results.
<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
A
audiomax
Guest
Re: Playlist
> audiomax wrote:
> "Great radio? What kind of share does that endless
> repetition get you?"
>
> So playing her favorite song when she wants top hear it is a
> strategy you oppose?
>
>
> "That's because radio programmers (the corporate ones--we
> suspect that local ones seldom have any power...) coddle the
> listener--patronizing her by fearing that she may not like a
> new song."
>
> Let's remember that every single getting a spin at one time
> was in fact a new song. It's about knowing that you play the
> song she likes. New or old or ancient or not.
>
>
> "Mainstream radio uses rest categories very effectively."
>
> The previous post asked that "I Can Only Imagine" be rested
> for the next 10 years, right away. How effective do you
> imagine that would be?
>
> Certainly rest is effective. But NOT with a hit song,
> showing NO BURN that she WANTS to hear and is LISTENING for.
>
>
>
>
> "If you are not at the top of the ratings, you do not have
> much to lose."
>
> Wrong. When you are at the top you have MUCH to lose.
>
>
>
> "so I am sure you all will clue me in if there is some
> reason behind this craziness in limiting the playlist SO
> MUCH."
>
> Exactly what do you mean by limit? How many songs would be
> your preference in a typical AC library? How many of those
> would you make currents. How often would you spin those
> currents and how long before you moved them to your
> recurrent or trashed?
>
> It's easy to say stations aren't broad enough with their
> libraries. Let's see a specific example of how that would be
> done and the success it shows. Even if it's just a
> "dream"....let's flesh it out and not just throw out assumed
> results.
>
Okay, if you all had not guessed, I am not a programmer, nor do I aspire to be one. So, that said, please take what I said with a grain of salt.
Just to be clear--I said, when you are NOT at the top, you do not have as much to lose.
Secondly, I do not advocate a rest period of 10 years--he is using hyperbole--just like when I use ALL CAPS TO MAKE A POINT. I guess I should be more obvious. My apologies.
Of course I do not oppose playing her favorite song that she is waiting to hear. I do not want to play songs just because they are different--I just like a little more seasoning. But, seeing as I am not a programmer, I cannot "flesh it out" and give you examples. It seems to me that a lot of people who voice track use similar strategioes--repetition of themes so that the listener, at some point, throughout the week, will hear that universal message that is being sent out...I understand that. And, I am sure, as 'neutralobserver' pointed out--you are right, I do not listen to my own station in the same way an average listener does.
I will also say that I seldom listen to any mainstream or commercial radio because they tend to do the things that I do not enjoy--tight rotations of small playlists.
I would love to see a playlist of about 450 to 500 songs...for any format. (see there, I went out on a limb, giving an opinion about something with which I have zero experience...I'm on the edge!!)
Have you guys noticed that this board doesn't always seem like a "chat" board, but rather a little more tense...so I leave you with smileys.
That said--thanks for enlightening me--and have a groovy afternoon!!
Max
> audiomax wrote:
> "Great radio? What kind of share does that endless
> repetition get you?"
>
> So playing her favorite song when she wants top hear it is a
> strategy you oppose?
>
>
> "That's because radio programmers (the corporate ones--we
> suspect that local ones seldom have any power...) coddle the
> listener--patronizing her by fearing that she may not like a
> new song."
>
> Let's remember that every single getting a spin at one time
> was in fact a new song. It's about knowing that you play the
> song she likes. New or old or ancient or not.
>
>
> "Mainstream radio uses rest categories very effectively."
>
> The previous post asked that "I Can Only Imagine" be rested
> for the next 10 years, right away. How effective do you
> imagine that would be?
>
> Certainly rest is effective. But NOT with a hit song,
> showing NO BURN that she WANTS to hear and is LISTENING for.
>
>
>
>
> "If you are not at the top of the ratings, you do not have
> much to lose."
>
> Wrong. When you are at the top you have MUCH to lose.
>
>
>
> "so I am sure you all will clue me in if there is some
> reason behind this craziness in limiting the playlist SO
> MUCH."
>
> Exactly what do you mean by limit? How many songs would be
> your preference in a typical AC library? How many of those
> would you make currents. How often would you spin those
> currents and how long before you moved them to your
> recurrent or trashed?
>
> It's easy to say stations aren't broad enough with their
> libraries. Let's see a specific example of how that would be
> done and the success it shows. Even if it's just a
> "dream"....let's flesh it out and not just throw out assumed
> results.
>
Okay, if you all had not guessed, I am not a programmer, nor do I aspire to be one. So, that said, please take what I said with a grain of salt.
Just to be clear--I said, when you are NOT at the top, you do not have as much to lose.
Secondly, I do not advocate a rest period of 10 years--he is using hyperbole--just like when I use ALL CAPS TO MAKE A POINT. I guess I should be more obvious. My apologies.
Of course I do not oppose playing her favorite song that she is waiting to hear. I do not want to play songs just because they are different--I just like a little more seasoning. But, seeing as I am not a programmer, I cannot "flesh it out" and give you examples. It seems to me that a lot of people who voice track use similar strategioes--repetition of themes so that the listener, at some point, throughout the week, will hear that universal message that is being sent out...I understand that. And, I am sure, as 'neutralobserver' pointed out--you are right, I do not listen to my own station in the same way an average listener does.
I will also say that I seldom listen to any mainstream or commercial radio because they tend to do the things that I do not enjoy--tight rotations of small playlists.
I would love to see a playlist of about 450 to 500 songs...for any format. (see there, I went out on a limb, giving an opinion about something with which I have zero experience...I'm on the edge!!
)Have you guys noticed that this board doesn't always seem like a "chat" board, but rather a little more tense...so I leave you with smileys.
That said--thanks for enlightening me--and have a groovy afternoon!!
Max
R
radioelizabeth
Guest
Re: Playlist
"Just to be clear--I said, when you are NOT at the top, you do not have as much to lose."
YOU DID! I stand corrected. Totally missed that.
"It seems to me that a lot of people who voice track use similar strategioes--repetition of themes so that the listener, at some point, throughout the week, will hear that universal message that is being sent out...I understand that."
Well...I think what you mean is some standard content...station promotion, positioning, etc...and that's across the board with live and voice tracked.
"I would love to see a playlist of about 450 to 500 songs...for any format. (see there, I went out on a limb, giving an opinion about something with which I have zero experience...I'm on the edge!!)"
I think you would find some ACs with that number. I won't talk programming on it, but you will find it.
"Have you guys noticed that this board doesn't always seem like a "chat" board, but rather a little more tense...so I leave you with smileys. "
That's probably partially my fault. I'm a rather intense individual...and I don't use those emoticons? Is that what they are called? Anyway, my heart is coming through...but it's hard to read in text often. Wow, I used two today!
<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
"Just to be clear--I said, when you are NOT at the top, you do not have as much to lose.
"YOU DID! I stand corrected. Totally missed that.
"It seems to me that a lot of people who voice track use similar strategioes--repetition of themes so that the listener, at some point, throughout the week, will hear that universal message that is being sent out...I understand that."
Well...I think what you mean is some standard content...station promotion, positioning, etc...and that's across the board with live and voice tracked.
"I would love to see a playlist of about 450 to 500 songs...for any format. (see there, I went out on a limb, giving an opinion about something with which I have zero experience...I'm on the edge!!
)"I think you would find some ACs with that number. I won't talk programming on it, but you will find it.
"Have you guys noticed that this board doesn't always seem like a "chat" board, but rather a little more tense...so I leave you with smileys.
"That's probably partially my fault. I'm a rather intense individual...and I don't use those emoticons? Is that what they are called? Anyway, my heart is coming through...but it's hard to read in text often.
Wow, I used two today!<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
N
neutral_observer
Guest
Re: Playlist
> Just to be clear--I said, when you are NOT at the top, you
> do not have as much to lose.
Elizabeth agreed with that...I was the one who didn't.
> It seems to me that a lot of
> people who voice track use similar strategioes--repetition
> of themes so that the listener, at some point, throughout
> the week, will hear that universal message that is being
> sent out....
Yes, it's called "building your brand." (Although, I'll be the first to admit that the industry seems to be overusing that word these days...just as it completely misuses the word "benchmark" on a daily basis. )
> I would love to see a playlist of about 450 to 500
> songs...
Oh, they exist. I've run monitors on a number of the Chrstian AC's, and some play even more. Interestingly, though not surprising one bit, these big list stations tend to be the underperformers, some of them being underperformers in areas where you would think double digits would be a very real possibility.
> Have you guys noticed that this board doesn't always seem
> like a "chat" board, but rather a little more tense...
Yeah....I think it's because of the larger percentage of non-radio people on this board. Many things that are principles recognized as givens among radio people are loudly argued here as if they're not long-ago settled material. It makes for a lot of pain for the actual radio people who try to discuss something.
> Just to be clear--I said, when you are NOT at the top, you
> do not have as much to lose.
Elizabeth agreed with that...I was the one who didn't.
> It seems to me that a lot of
> people who voice track use similar strategioes--repetition
> of themes so that the listener, at some point, throughout
> the week, will hear that universal message that is being
> sent out....
Yes, it's called "building your brand." (Although, I'll be the first to admit that the industry seems to be overusing that word these days...just as it completely misuses the word "benchmark" on a daily basis.
)> I would love to see a playlist of about 450 to 500
> songs...
Oh, they exist. I've run monitors on a number of the Chrstian AC's, and some play even more. Interestingly, though not surprising one bit, these big list stations tend to be the underperformers, some of them being underperformers in areas where you would think double digits would be a very real possibility.
> Have you guys noticed that this board doesn't always seem
> like a "chat" board, but rather a little more tense...
Yeah....I think it's because of the larger percentage of non-radio people on this board. Many things that are principles recognized as givens among radio people are loudly argued here as if they're not long-ago settled material. It makes for a lot of pain for the actual radio people who try to discuss something.
A
audiomax
Guest
Re: Playlist
> > Just to be clear--I said, when you are NOT at the top, you
>
> > do not have as much to lose.
>
> Elizabeth agreed with that...I was the one who didn't.
>
>
> > It seems to me that a lot of
> > people who voice track use similar strategioes--repetition
>
> > of themes so that the listener, at some point, throughout
> > the week, will hear that universal message that is being
> > sent out....
>
> Yes, it's called "building your brand." (Although, I'll be
> the first to admit that the industry seems to be overusing
> that word these days...just as it completely misuses the
> word "benchmark" on a daily basis. )
>
>
> > I would love to see a playlist of about 450 to 500
> > songs...
>
> Oh, they exist. I've run monitors on a number of the
> Chrstian AC's, and some play even more. Interestingly,
> though not surprising one bit, these big list stations tend
> to be the underperformers, some of them being
> underperformers in areas where you would think double digits
> would be a very real possibility.
>
>
> > Have you guys noticed that this board doesn't always seem
> > like a "chat" board, but rather a little more tense...
>
> Yeah....I think it's because of the larger percentage of
> non-radio people on this board. Many things that are
> principles recognized as givens among radio people are
> loudly argued here as if they're not long-ago settled
> material. It makes for a lot of pain for the actual radio
> people who try to discuss something.
>
This last paragraph is interesting. When I said the board here was a little more tense--I mean the tone is quite vehement. That said, it is a chat board--a place to chat about things having to do with the subject at hand. I am not a programmer...does that mean I cannot have an opinion on that "long-ago settled material"? I hope that only being in ~programming~ allows me a voice on the board.
Just as we have discussed in other posts--that which is long settled, and a "given" in your words, may work...and then again, it may not. We are all at the mercy of a very arbitrary system of ratings. You may have the tight playlist, the emotional connection from your on air people, the *right* kinds of events promoted at the station and do everything by the book, and still get cruddy ratings. So, because we are at the mercy of something we cannot control, the Big "A," it is fun to speculate on how you can achieve the results you are looking for.
I hope the questions I bring up are not too annoying. As I have had great success in programming, I have no desire to be a programmer...and just like many people have all kinds of opinions on what is wrong with politics and the world, they have no desire to get involved themselves. So, I am guilty of being an armchair quarterback...and a cliche flogger.
Have a great afternoon--and thank you for always sharing such good insights.
p.s. Neither you nor Elizabeth agreed with my statement about stations not having much to lose...you because of a certain opinion, she because she misread the statement.
> > Just to be clear--I said, when you are NOT at the top, you
>
> > do not have as much to lose.
>
> Elizabeth agreed with that...I was the one who didn't.
>
>
> > It seems to me that a lot of
> > people who voice track use similar strategioes--repetition
>
> > of themes so that the listener, at some point, throughout
> > the week, will hear that universal message that is being
> > sent out....
>
> Yes, it's called "building your brand." (Although, I'll be
> the first to admit that the industry seems to be overusing
> that word these days...just as it completely misuses the
> word "benchmark" on a daily basis.
)>
>
> > I would love to see a playlist of about 450 to 500
> > songs...
>
> Oh, they exist. I've run monitors on a number of the
> Chrstian AC's, and some play even more. Interestingly,
> though not surprising one bit, these big list stations tend
> to be the underperformers, some of them being
> underperformers in areas where you would think double digits
> would be a very real possibility.
>
>
> > Have you guys noticed that this board doesn't always seem
> > like a "chat" board, but rather a little more tense...
>
> Yeah....I think it's because of the larger percentage of
> non-radio people on this board. Many things that are
> principles recognized as givens among radio people are
> loudly argued here as if they're not long-ago settled
> material. It makes for a lot of pain for the actual radio
> people who try to discuss something.
>
This last paragraph is interesting. When I said the board here was a little more tense--I mean the tone is quite vehement. That said, it is a chat board--a place to chat about things having to do with the subject at hand. I am not a programmer...does that mean I cannot have an opinion on that "long-ago settled material"? I hope that only being in ~programming~ allows me a voice on the board.
Just as we have discussed in other posts--that which is long settled, and a "given" in your words, may work...and then again, it may not. We are all at the mercy of a very arbitrary
system of ratings. You may have the tight playlist, the emotional connection from your on air people, the *right* kinds of events promoted at the station and do everything by the book, and still get cruddy ratings. So, because we are at the mercy of something we cannot control, the Big "A," it is fun to speculate on how you can achieve the results you are looking for. I hope the questions I bring up are not too annoying. As I have had great success in programming, I have no desire to be a programmer...and just like many people have all kinds of opinions on what is wrong with politics and the world, they have no desire to get involved themselves. So, I am guilty of being an armchair quarterback...and a cliche flogger.
Have a great afternoon--and thank you for always sharing such good insights.
p.s. Neither you nor Elizabeth agreed with my statement about stations not having much to lose...you because of a certain opinion, she because she misread the statement.
R
radioelizabeth
Guest
Re: Playlist
"You may have the tight playlist, the emotional connection from your on air people, the *right* kinds of events promoted at the station and do everything by the book, and still get cruddy ratings."
Hmmm... I'm not too sure this is actually possible, unless we're talking about a station with very little CUME and/or some pretty wild diary placement.
But no one would look at one book or even two to define the success of a station...so while I don't believe we are at the "mercy of A"...I do believe it's an indicator. And IF a station is doing all the things mentioned above, I'd be hard pressed to imagine a consistent trend of poor ratings.
But I'd love to see it, if it's there...
<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
"You may have the tight playlist, the emotional connection from your on air people, the *right* kinds of events promoted at the station and do everything by the book, and still get cruddy ratings."
Hmmm... I'm not too sure this is actually possible, unless we're talking about a station with very little CUME and/or some pretty wild diary placement.
But no one would look at one book or even two to define the success of a station...so while I don't believe we are at the "mercy of A"...I do believe it's an indicator. And IF a station is doing all the things mentioned above, I'd be hard pressed to imagine a consistent trend of poor ratings.
But I'd love to see it, if it's there...
<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
stryper
what if her favorite song is to hell with the devil..if it is add it today and play it every 2 hours for 2 years. she and i will be very happy ...
> > audiomax wrote:
> > "Great radio? What kind of share does that endless
> > repetition get you?"
> >
> > So playing her favorite song when she wants top hear it is
> a
> > strategy you oppose?
> >
> >
> > "That's because radio programmers (the corporate ones--we
> > suspect that local ones seldom have any power...) coddle
> the
> > listener--patronizing her by fearing that she may not like
> a
> > new song."
> >
> > Let's remember that every single getting a spin at one
> time
> > was in fact a new song. It's about knowing that you play
> the
> > song she likes. New or old or ancient or not.
> >
> >
> > "Mainstream radio uses rest categories very effectively."
> >
> > The previous post asked that "I Can Only Imagine" be
> rested
> > for the next 10 years, right away. How effective do you
> > imagine that would be?
> >
> > Certainly rest is effective. But NOT with a hit song,
> > showing NO BURN that she WANTS to hear and is LISTENING
> for.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "If you are not at the top of the ratings, you do not have
>
> > much to lose."
> >
> > Wrong. When you are at the top you have MUCH to lose.
> >
> >
> >
> > "so I am sure you all will clue me in if there is some
> > reason behind this craziness in limiting the playlist SO
> > MUCH."
> >
> > Exactly what do you mean by limit? How many songs would be
>
> > your preference in a typical AC library? How many of those
>
> > would you make currents. How often would you spin those
> > currents and how long before you moved them to your
> > recurrent or trashed?
> >
> > It's easy to say stations aren't broad enough with their
> > libraries. Let's see a specific example of how that would
> be
> > done and the success it shows. Even if it's just a
> > "dream"....let's flesh it out and not just throw out
> assumed
> > results.
> >
>
>
> Okay, if you all had not guessed, I am not a programmer, nor
> do I aspire to be one. So, that said, please take what I
> said with a grain of salt.
>
> Just to be clear--I said, when you are NOT at the top, you
> do not have as much to lose.
>
> Secondly, I do not advocate a rest period of 10 years--he is
> using hyperbole--just like when I use ALL CAPS TO MAKE A
> POINT. I guess I should be more obvious. My apologies.
>
> Of course I do not oppose playing her favorite song that she
> is waiting to hear. I do not want to play songs just because
> they are different--I just like a little more seasoning.
> But, seeing as I am not a programmer, I cannot "flesh it
> out" and give you examples. It seems to me that a lot of
> people who voice track use similar strategioes--repetition
> of themes so that the listener, at some point, throughout
> the week, will hear that universal message that is being
> sent out...I understand that. And, I am sure, as
> 'neutralobserver' pointed out--you are right, I do not
> listen to my own station in the same way an average listener
> does.
>
> I will also say that I seldom listen to any mainstream or
> commercial radio because they tend to do the things that I
> do not enjoy--tight rotations of small playlists.
>
> I would love to see a playlist of about 450 to 500
> songs...for any format. (see there, I went out on a limb,
> giving an opinion about something with which I have zero
> experience...I'm on the edge!!)
>
> Have you guys noticed that this board doesn't always seem
> like a "chat" board, but rather a little more tense...so I
> leave you with smileys.
>
> That said--thanks for enlightening me--and have a groovy
> afternoon!!
>
> Max
>
<P ID="signature">______________
note to the NAB..satellite radio..its worth paying for!!</P>
what if her favorite song is to hell with the devil
..if it is add it today and play it every 2 hours for 2 years. she and i will be very happy ...> > audiomax wrote:
> > "Great radio? What kind of share does that endless
> > repetition get you?"
> >
> > So playing her favorite song when she wants top hear it is
> a
> > strategy you oppose?
> >
> >
> > "That's because radio programmers (the corporate ones--we
> > suspect that local ones seldom have any power...) coddle
> the
> > listener--patronizing her by fearing that she may not like
> a
> > new song."
> >
> > Let's remember that every single getting a spin at one
> time
> > was in fact a new song. It's about knowing that you play
> the
> > song she likes. New or old or ancient or not.
> >
> >
> > "Mainstream radio uses rest categories very effectively."
> >
> > The previous post asked that "I Can Only Imagine" be
> rested
> > for the next 10 years, right away. How effective do you
> > imagine that would be?
> >
> > Certainly rest is effective. But NOT with a hit song,
> > showing NO BURN that she WANTS to hear and is LISTENING
> for.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "If you are not at the top of the ratings, you do not have
>
> > much to lose."
> >
> > Wrong. When you are at the top you have MUCH to lose.
> >
> >
> >
> > "so I am sure you all will clue me in if there is some
> > reason behind this craziness in limiting the playlist SO
> > MUCH."
> >
> > Exactly what do you mean by limit? How many songs would be
>
> > your preference in a typical AC library? How many of those
>
> > would you make currents. How often would you spin those
> > currents and how long before you moved them to your
> > recurrent or trashed?
> >
> > It's easy to say stations aren't broad enough with their
> > libraries. Let's see a specific example of how that would
> be
> > done and the success it shows. Even if it's just a
> > "dream"....let's flesh it out and not just throw out
> assumed
> > results.
> >
>
>
> Okay, if you all had not guessed, I am not a programmer, nor
> do I aspire to be one. So, that said, please take what I
> said with a grain of salt.
>
> Just to be clear--I said, when you are NOT at the top, you
> do not have as much to lose.
>
> Secondly, I do not advocate a rest period of 10 years--he is
> using hyperbole--just like when I use ALL CAPS TO MAKE A
> POINT. I guess I should be more obvious. My apologies.
>
> Of course I do not oppose playing her favorite song that she
> is waiting to hear. I do not want to play songs just because
> they are different--I just like a little more seasoning.
> But, seeing as I am not a programmer, I cannot "flesh it
> out" and give you examples. It seems to me that a lot of
> people who voice track use similar strategioes--repetition
> of themes so that the listener, at some point, throughout
> the week, will hear that universal message that is being
> sent out...I understand that. And, I am sure, as
> 'neutralobserver' pointed out--you are right, I do not
> listen to my own station in the same way an average listener
> does.
>
> I will also say that I seldom listen to any mainstream or
> commercial radio because they tend to do the things that I
> do not enjoy--tight rotations of small playlists.
>
> I would love to see a playlist of about 450 to 500
> songs...for any format. (see there, I went out on a limb,
> giving an opinion about something with which I have zero
> experience...I'm on the edge!!
)>
> Have you guys noticed that this board doesn't always seem
> like a "chat" board, but rather a little more tense...so I
> leave you with smileys.
>
> That said--thanks for enlightening me--and have a groovy
> afternoon!!
>
> Max
>
<P ID="signature">______________
note to the NAB..satellite radio..its worth paying for!!</P>
R
radioelizabeth
Guest
Re: stryper
"what if her favorite song is to hell with the devil"
It's not.<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
"what if her favorite song is to hell with the devil"
It's not.<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
Re: stryper
> "what if her favorite song is to hell with the devil"
>
> It's not.
>
it may be.... all women dont listen to bubblegum pop..my best friends wife listens to the greatful dead and pink floyd most of the time and hates ac music..no need to flame me however..just stating a fact this time<P ID="signature">______________
note to the NAB..satellite radio..its worth paying for!!</P>
> "what if her favorite song is to hell with the devil"
>
> It's not.
>
it may be.... all women dont listen to bubblegum pop..my best friends wife listens to the greatful dead and pink floyd most of the time and hates ac music..no need to flame me however..just stating a fact this time
<P ID="signature">______________note to the NAB..satellite radio..its worth paying for!!</P>
R
radioelizabeth
Guest
Re: stryper
smashedcd wrote:
"what if her favorite song is to hell with the devil"
radioelizabeth wrote:
"It's not."
smashedcd wrote:
"it may be.... all women dont listen to bubblegum pop..my best friends wife listens to the greatful dead and pink floyd most of the time and hates ac music.."
It's not. If it were, then the song would be on the radio. Again, there are no cookie cutter formulas that every individual neatly falls into...but there are real stats and whether we like to believe it or not, we all do fall into those.
"her" (the target listener) favorite song is not to hell with the devil.
"no need to flame me however..just stating a fact this time"
A fact about an individual preference, yes. But not about target. No flames...unless you can find some marshmallows...then I'm all about it. Yum!
<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
smashedcd wrote:
"what if her favorite song is to hell with the devil"
radioelizabeth wrote:
"It's not."
smashedcd wrote:
"it may be.... all women dont listen to bubblegum pop..my best friends wife listens to the greatful dead and pink floyd most of the time and hates ac music.."
It's not. If it were, then the song would be on the radio. Again, there are no cookie cutter formulas that every individual neatly falls into...but there are real stats and whether we like to believe it or not, we all do fall into those.
"her" (the target listener) favorite song is not to hell with the devil.
"no need to flame me however..just stating a fact this time
"A fact about an individual preference, yes. But not about target.
No flames...unless you can find some marshmallows...then I'm all about it. Yum! <P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
N
neutral_observer
Guest
Re: Playlist
> This last paragraph is interesting. When I said the board
> here was a little more tense--I mean the tone is quite
> vehement.
True...and that's what I was saying.
> That said, it is a chat board--a place to chat
> about things having to do with the subject at hand. I am not
> a programmer...does that mean I cannot have an opinion on
> that "long-ago settled material"? ...I hope the questions I bring
> up are not too annoying.
Oh, no...you're fine!
Although...
No, nothing bad...!
I was going to suggest that, if you have no interest in programming, you shouldn't try to learn too much about it. I am of *the opinion* that knowing much about programming too often causes your brain to self-edit too much -- you either know or create too many reasons not to say something and wind up having little or nothing to say.
> Just as we have discussed in other posts--that which is long
> settled, and a "given" in your words, may work...and then
> again, it may not.
Principles are true every time regardless of circumstances.
> We are all at the mercy of a very
> arbitrary system of ratings.
Not if you're not.
Many stations in the format are not.
You can (and probably should) "play" most of the "ratings games," but an easy way to ensure plenty of listening is to put out a product that matches the desires of the target audience and do it in an entertaining and endearing fashion.
> You may have the tight
> playlist, the emotional connection from your on air people,
> the *right* kinds of events promoted at the station and do
> everything by the book, and still get cruddy ratings.
Maybe if you have a bad signal...I can't think why else that would occur.
> This last paragraph is interesting. When I said the board
> here was a little more tense--I mean the tone is quite
> vehement.
True...and that's what I was saying.
> That said, it is a chat board--a place to chat
> about things having to do with the subject at hand. I am not
> a programmer...does that mean I cannot have an opinion on
> that "long-ago settled material"? ...I hope the questions I bring
> up are not too annoying.
Oh, no...you're fine!
Although...
No, nothing bad...!
I was going to suggest that, if you have no interest in programming, you shouldn't try to learn too much about it. I am of *the opinion* that knowing much about programming too often causes your brain to self-edit too much -- you either know or create too many reasons not to say something and wind up having little or nothing to say.
> Just as we have discussed in other posts--that which is long
> settled, and a "given" in your words, may work...and then
> again, it may not.
Principles are true every time regardless of circumstances.
> We are all at the mercy of a very
> arbitrary
system of ratings. Not if you're not.
Many stations in the format are not.
You can (and probably should) "play" most of the "ratings games," but an easy way to ensure plenty of listening is to put out a product that matches the desires of the target audience and do it in an entertaining and endearing fashion.
> You may have the tight
> playlist, the emotional connection from your on air people,
> the *right* kinds of events promoted at the station and do
> everything by the book, and still get cruddy ratings.
Maybe if you have a bad signal...I can't think why else that would occur.
- Status