Classic Hits: Evolution or Revolution?

[michael hagerty]

Hi, oldies 76, I hope you are not seriously considering "Macarena" for play on classic hits stations, once they start introducing '90s music, which I feel like is still a minimum of five years away. I have a feeling that "Macarena" will fall into the same category as other extremely long chart toppers, like "You Light Up My Life" and "Physical," that almost no one wants to hear anymore.

It should remain in the library, but not in regular rotation.

Roger that!

Funny you mentioned that no one would want to hear it anymore...it was a requested song at a home party that I did in November. And they had fun dancing to it, steps, moves and all. Interesting huh?

Tom Kent fairly regularly plays "The Electric Slide" (which I think is a cool song), but yet, other than Kent, I never hear it on radio. I suppose it's cool to have some party and club favorites which aren't usually played over the radio.

The poster probably meant that no one wanted to hear it several times a day, for the rest of their life!

Roger that, too! 8)

About Tom Kent,
From our discussion in that last "tuneout" thread, testing was the main topic. If Tom Kent is national, then his "testing" must reflect that. So in the past week alone here's what I've heard Tom Kent play---
-"9 to 5" - Dolly Parton
-"One Bad Apple" - Osmonds
-"Morning After" - Maureen McGovern
-"Seasons In The Sun" - Terry Jacks
-"Dizzy" - Tommy Roe
-"Love Is Blue" - Paul Mauriat
-"Walk Like An Egyptian" - Bangles
and plenty more........
my point is, why would Tom Kent's network (and I know he runs several different "programs") be chuck full of all these songs that "don't test well" or "no one wants to hear again"? Unfortuantely, and I never thought I'd say this but, Tom Kent is the most creative and fun to listen to radio anywhere. He's not afraid to throw these songs in the mix, and it kept me listening....

Also, it was mentioned in that thread that stations like K-Earth in LA benefit by playing "Black Magic Woman" and "La Bamba" because it "appeals to Hispanic listeners", well if they use that lousy logic, then cue up the "Macarena" now :

David also addressed the costs of music testing. It's far more likely that Tom doesn't do testing and that, so far, stations have just rolled with it given his timeslot.

And there is no "lousy logic" in the example given about Hispanic appeal. The testing includes whether certain records over or under-index with different age ranges, genders and ethnic groups. "Black Magic Woman" and "La Bamba" test well across those groups. Given that KRTH has a couple of titles from the 90s, it's reasonable to assume "Macarena" does not.

 

[davideduardo]

About Tom Kent,
From our discussion in that last "tuneout" thread, testing was the main topic. If Tom Kent is national, then his "testing" must reflect that.

The oldies show generally runs Saturday in the 7 to Midnight slot... radio's invisible daypart. Listening is so low that most PPM reports against anything more narrow than 6+ or 25-54 return the symbol indicating that the data is insufficient for tabulation. Stations could sign off at 7 PM on Saturday and their overall ratings would not change, so miniscule is the audience level overall.

So, given that, it is very, very unlikely that a syndicated specialty show would do any research at all... I doubt they could justify the cost.

Also, it was mentioned in that thread that stations like K-Earth in LA benefit by playing "Black Magic Woman" and "La Bamba" because it "appeals to Hispanic listeners", well if they use that lousy logic, then cue up the "Macarena" now :

La Macarena does not appeal to Hispanic listeners today. It was a novelty song, and burned fast. The other songs named have strong appeal and will continue to be played.

La Bamba does not do badly, considering it is a century old song!

 

[CTListener]

About Tom Kent,
From our discussion in that last "tuneout" thread, testing was the main topic. If Tom Kent is national, then his "testing" must reflect that.

The oldies show generally runs Saturday in the 7 to Midnight slot... radio's invisible daypart. Listening is so low that most PPM reports against anything more narrow than 6+ or 25-54 return the symbol indicating that the data is insufficient for tabulation. Stations could sign off at 7 PM on Saturday and their overall ratings would not change, so miniscule is the audience level overall.

WDRC-FM runs Kent 7-12 Mon-Fri, a live local request show 7-12 Saturday, and Charlie Tuna 7-12 Sunday. Kent's show always contains several songs that are no longer -- or have never been -- on the DRC-FM playlist. I guess weeknights are enough of an "invisible daypart" that it doesn't matter.

 

[oldies76]

La Bamba does not do badly, considering it is a century old song!

A century old song?? Wow, that's an exaggeration...1959 and 1987 ;D

 

[oldies76]

I never thought I'd say this but, Tom Kent is the most creative and fun to listen to radio anywhere. He's not afraid to throw these songs in the mix, and it kept me listening....

It just takes a little creativity and boom! You've got yourself a fun and variety filled show. Every song is playable today, it just has to be done the right way. Check out Dick Bartley's and Charlie Tuna's shows too. The link for Super Hits 106 from Dubuque, Iowa is on another thread under the classic hits subject.

 

[michael hagerty]

La Bamba does not do badly, considering it is a century old song!

A century old song?? Wow, that's an exaggeration...1959 and 1987 ;D

Oldies: I told you not to argue with David. I didn't know this, but it only took me five seconds with Google:

http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/1598-la-bamba-explained-the-music-of-veracruz


If anything, David erred on the side of caution. Some sources online say the basic song may go back 300 years.

 

[davideduardo]

La Bamba does not do badly, considering it is a century old song!

A century old song?? Wow, that's an exaggeration...1959 and 1987 ;D

In its current form, it's traceable back to around the 1850's. as Michael notes, he deep origins go back perhaps another century.

The song has many variants of the lyrics, as performers would improvise the verses based on the situation or current events. There are quite a few verses dating to the Revolución (second decade of the 20th Century) that are quite topical... some are even humorous.

The song has been in the repertoire of the famed Mariachi Vargas de Tecalitlán since near the time of its founding in 1897... there are recorded versions going on 80 years of age.

 

[CTListener]

La Bamba does not do badly, considering it is a century old song!

A century old song?? Wow, that's an exaggeration...1959 and 1987 ;D

In its current form, it's traceable back to around the 1850's. as Michael notes, he deep origins go back perhaps another century.

The song has many variants of the lyrics, as performers would improvise the verses based on the situation or current events. There are quite a few verses dating to the Revolución (second decade of the 20th Century) that are quite topical... some are even humorous.

The song has been in the repertoire of the famed Mariachi Vargas de Tecalitlán since near the time of its founding in 1897... there are recorded versions going on 80 years of age.

The Russian folk tune that is the foundation of Mary Hopkin's "Those Were the Days" is likely far older.

 

[michael hagerty]

La Bamba does not do badly, considering it is a century old song!

A century old song?? Wow, that's an exaggeration...1959 and 1987 ;D

In its current form, it's traceable back to around the 1850's. as Michael notes, he deep origins go back perhaps another century.

The song has many variants of the lyrics, as performers would improvise the verses based on the situation or current events. There are quite a few verses dating to the Revolución (second decade of the 20th Century) that are quite topical... some are even humorous.

The song has been in the repertoire of the famed Mariachi Vargas de Tecalitlán since near the time of its founding in 1897... there are recorded versions going on 80 years of age.

The Russian folk tune that is the foundation of Mary Hopkin's "Those Were the Days" is likely far older.

Again, 5 minutes with Google. The tune was written by a guy (Boris Fomin) who was born in 1900...so, no.

 

[oldies76]

Oldies: I told you not to argue with David. I didn't know this, but it only took me five seconds with Google:

Who's arguing?? Michael, the smiley face at the end of my sentence, says it all.

Go back to the heat of the "Tune Out" thread, if you want arguing. You are taking this a bit seriously.

 

[Biondi4Mayor]

About Tom Kent,
From our discussion in that last "tuneout" thread, testing was the main topic. If Tom Kent is national, then his "testing" must reflect that.

The oldies show generally runs Saturday in the 7 to Midnight slot... radio's invisible daypart. Listening is so low that most PPM reports against anything more narrow than 6+ or 25-54 return the symbol indicating that the data is insufficient for tabulation. Stations could sign off at 7 PM on Saturday and their overall ratings would not change, so miniscule is the audience level overall.

So, given that, it is very, very unlikely that a syndicated specialty show would do any research at all... I doubt they could justify the cost.

Well Tom Kent is not on at a set time, in fact that's his "big thing". His syndication allows for multiple different shows and multiple "custom" timeslots, so any station I hear him on has him on during the day...and to quote the general manager of that station, it was for "greater ratings potential". The songs I listed were heard during the 1PM weekday hour, and was not a "specialty program", rather his most mainstream.

Also, the other songs I listed are NOT played in any market I know regularly, so you're comment surprises me.

Furthermore, why would it be likely that Tom Kent does not test? So all you "professionals" SWEAR by testing, yet one of the fastest growing syndicated DJ's doesn't test.....hmmmm : If testing is the life-blood of radio (God-forbid a song gets aired with the particular "tune-out" percentage, but extra commercials are good), and it was referenced several times in the other thread that virtually ALL stations, in MOST markets tests (I remember because I was called out several times by stating I did not believe this fact) then there is a disconnect in your comment.

Therefore, one of two conclusions could be drawn:
1) Either testing is useless, and success can be found in actually deviating from the standard norm of classic hits, OR
2) If he does test, Tom Kent's testing of music to appeal nationally, has far different results than other stations using the format. Therefore, it reasserts my believe that the reason songs are "blacklisted" is not because they are "bad", but because they never get tested in the first place.

You'll disagree with every word I say, but whatever.....

 

[oldies76]

Therefore, it reasserts my believe that the reason songs are "blacklisted" is not because they are "bad", but because they never get tested in the first place.

That could be the case with certain songs, like half of 1977's #1 songs, especially the one that ruled between October and December of that year. But here's my theory (which will also be disagreed upon by certain posters):

I believe certain songs have tested over and over through the years, because of maximum exposure, meaning that since these are mainly the songs that have been played on radio for a long period of time, the average listener has gotten familiar with them (or used to them), therefore when these songs come up at testing sessions, they will get positives, since these are the only hits these average listeners are ever familiar with. If radio never plays the other 85-90% of charted hits, how else will the average listener ever have a chance to listen to them, then test them?? They are unfamiliar, due to non-airplay to begin with or simply just forgotten over time. Whether they are actually disliked or liked, is another matter, and they will never have the chance, unless radio plays them again.

The average listener has an idea that these are the only big hits around, not knowing that 90% of all the other songs are being avoided. So when a "rare classic" comes on, they are ...oh wow, haven't heard this one in ages....or Gosh! I love that song! It happens all the time.

Take a look at a list of the Billboard #1 songs from 1967 to 1986....Look at how many of them are actually avoided.....And then think of all the songs from positions 2 through 10 or even 20 that are not played. You're talking hundreds, if not a few thousand hits.

That's why the Tom Kent shows, the Charlie Tuna shows, the classic countdowns...etc...are gaining popularity. Variety is a good thing, isn't it??

 

[michael hagerty]

About Tom Kent,
From our discussion in that last "tuneout" thread, testing was the main topic. If Tom Kent is national, then his "testing" must reflect that.

The oldies show generally runs Saturday in the 7 to Midnight slot... radio's invisible daypart. Listening is so low that most PPM reports against anything more narrow than 6+ or 25-54 return the symbol indicating that the data is insufficient for tabulation. Stations could sign off at 7 PM on Saturday and their overall ratings would not change, so miniscule is the audience level overall.

So, given that, it is very, very unlikely that a syndicated specialty show would do any research at all... I doubt they could justify the cost.

Well Tom Kent is not on at a set time, in fact that's his "big thing". His syndication allows for multiple different shows and multiple "custom" timeslots, so any station I hear him on has him on during the day...and to quote the general manager of that station, it was for "greater ratings potential". The songs I listed were heard during the 1PM weekday hour, and was not a "specialty program", rather his most mainstream.

Also, the other songs I listed are NOT played in any market I know regularly, so you're comment surprises me.

Furthermore, why would it be likely that Tom Kent does not test? So all you "professionals" SWEAR by testing, yet one of the fastest growing syndicated DJ's doesn't test.....hmmmm : If testing is the life-blood of radio (God-forbid a song gets aired with the particular "tune-out" percentage, but extra commercials are good), and it was referenced several times in the other thread that virtually ALL stations, in MOST markets tests (I remember because I was called out several times by stating I did not believe this fact) then there is a disconnect in your comment.

Therefore, one of two conclusions could be drawn:
1) Either testing is useless, and success can be found in actually deviating from the standard norm of classic hits, OR
2) If he does test, Tom Kent's testing of music to appeal nationally, has far different results than other stations using the format. Therefore, it reasserts my believe that the reason songs are "blacklisted" is not because they are "bad", but because they never get tested in the first place.

You'll disagree with every word I say, but whatever.....

Well, only because there are facts to contend with.

As David pointed out in the other thread a few weeks back, music testing is expensive:

...a 100 person music test costs about $30,000 dollars. To test 1000 people would cost over a quarter of a million dollars, and 10,000 persons would cost over $2 million dollars.


Guys, Tom Kent's a tremendous talent and one of my favorite jocks ever. But he's a small businessman. To get testing that would adequately cover geographical differences, he'd need to do multiple tests around the country with a total of at least a thousand participants.

And if he wasn't in the mood to flush six figures four times a year, he'd need to act on that testing...which would mean tighter, not broader, playlists. Because some of what kills in L.A. would likely have unacceptable negatives in Milwaukee, and vice-versa.

To suggest that Tom Kent's level of success without using music testing negates Top 5 numbers and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the Classic Hits stations, you need to supply some facts:

What markets does Tom air in? Which markets carry the daily show? In what timeslots? How are the ratings for each of them compared to the competition? What are we basing the "fastest growing" claim on?

 

[michael hagerty]

That's why the Tom Kent shows, the Charlie Tuna shows, the classic countdowns...etc...are gaining popularity.

Same thing I said to Biondi above (and Charlie Tuna is another one of my all-time favorites): On what are we basing that claim?

I don't know Charlie's business model, but I've read Tom's. Your station can have him for (and he puts this in all-caps boldface) low cash or (again all-caps boldface) low barter.

Trust me, in this environment, it's mostly barter (the station gives up some of its commercial time for Tom to sell nationally).

So you've got a station GM who's looking at the harsh realities and sees he can have a pro jock in his lowest-billing timeslots (overnights, evenings, weekends and increasingly in certain markets middays). It'll cost him two minutes of his commercial time per hour, but he gets to keep twelve. Even if the show doesn't improve ratings and revenue, those two minutes an hour are so undervalued that he's saving money compared to salary and benefits for a live, local jock.

No disrespect to Tom, Charlie or their talents, but the gold in this approach isn't that they're massive audience-builders so much as they are effective cost-cutters.

 

[michael hagerty]

WDRC-FM runs Kent 7-12 Mon-Fri, a live local request show 7-12 Saturday, and Charlie Tuna 7-12 Sunday. Kent's show always contains several songs that are no longer -- or have never been -- on the DRC-FM playlist. I guess weeknights are enough of an "invisible daypart" that it doesn't matter.

For adults, especially. Listening levels among 25-54 year olds drop precipitously after 7, when most switch their attention to TV. It's been that way for a long time. The only way I could get competitive numbers 35 years ago on an AC station was to crank up the tempo in music and presentation and compete with the local Top 40 station for 12-34 listeners.

When AC became "soft continuous hits" in the 80s, the solution became shows like Delilah. Tom's show is really an evolution of that, for a different, more upbeat format.

 

[davideduardo]

I don't know Charlie's business model, but I've read Tom's. Your station can have him for (and he puts this in all-caps boldface) low cash or (again all-caps boldface) low barter.

Unlike most syndicators, there is no list of stations on the website (or if there is, it is so inconspicuous that I missed it). Usually, program distributors put key stations on the home page, and include massive doses of ratings "before and after" numbers.

I know what that says to me...

 

[davideduardo]

I believe certain songs have tested over and over through the years, because of maximum exposure, meaning that since these are mainly the songs that have been played on radio for a long period of time, the average listener has gotten familiar with them (or used to them), therefore when these songs come up at testing sessions, they will get positives, since these are the only hits these average listeners are ever familiar with. If radio never plays the other 85-90% of charted hits, how else will the average listener ever have a chance to listen to them, then test them??

The bonding with a song usually occurs when the song is a current. When a song... any song... is tested as a "classic" or "oldie" the scores are based predominantly on having liked a song when it was new and still wanting to hear it.

Tests generally measure familiarity ("do you know this song" or "have you heard it before" are the ways it is expressed or explained to respondents) and it can be broadly stated that, except for songs that did not get uniform national airplay or which did not chart very high, every song that is ever tested among classic hits partisans is familiar.

It's just that people don't want to hear many, many of them any more.

They are unfamiliar, due to non-airplay to begin with or simply just forgotten over time.

In a cupla' thousand music tests I have never ever seen evidence of broad-based hits being "forgotten". Dismissed, yes, but out of a desire to never hear such songs again. But not forgotten.

The average listener has an idea that these are the only big hits around, not knowing that 90% of all the other songs are being avoided.

You gotta' quit expressing your "when I wish upon a star" desires as truisms.

I've seen no evidence that listeners don't know there are hundreds or thousands of other songs that once upon a time got played. They are familiar with the songs, and indicate such in tests... where they also say "I know the song, but keep it off the radio... please".

So when a "rare classic" comes on, they are ...oh wow, haven't heard this one in ages....or Gosh! I love that song! It happens all the time.

... when I wish upon a star

That's why the Tom Kent shows, the Charlie Tuna shows, the classic countdowns...etc...are gaining popularity. Variety is a good thing, isn't it??

Those shows, generally in unsalable dayparts like 7 PM to 5 AM and certain other weekend times, feature music that would be dangerous to play at any other time, but which may attract a fringe audience.

As to "gaining in popularity" we are back to the "when I wish upon a star" again.

 

[RIN3GUY]

Classic Hits radio needs to focus on the artists and the quality of their music, and not obsess over its age so much, whether it is older or newer music. The Internet is leveling the playing field, and radio should use this to its advantage. There is a great chasm of music quality which Classic Hits radio cannot and should not attempt to cross. 1993 is a great example, where things really scraped bottom, but that is just the worst example of what characterized the entire decade, and it happened again in 2001 and again in 2010 -- all of them horrible years for music! And the bright spots in other recent years have been few and far between.

The Beatles, the Eagles, Elton John, Diana Ross, ELO, Queen, Billy Joel, Stevie Wonder, Chicago, Eric Carmen, Foreigner, and Fleetwood Mac are all examples of artists that will never lose their appeal because they created a monolithic musical mountain which established a musical standard unattainable today. To supplant them, they will first have to die (which will generate renewed interest in their music, as always) and then their gifts can be passed on to others. But that cannot happen as long as artists such as these are still alive and well!

By focusing on the artist instead of the age of the music then you can start playing Eric Clapton's "Change the World" and Cher's "Believe" instead of arbitrarily limiting the playing of that artist's music to only within a certain decade or two. Artists like Madonna made great songs in 1985 ("Crazy For You"), 1995, ("Take a Bow"), and 2005 ("Hung Up"). If she makes another one in 2015, why discriminate against a newer song?? If they are a Classic Hits artist with a decent song, play their newer hits too!! And the same goes for those few newer artists whose sound is compatible with '60s-'70s-'80s music. What can perhaps also be done is "cherry picking" artists such as Fastball, Maroon 5, Spice Girls and a few select others as they come along in order to generate appeal for the younger age groups and thereby broaden the audience. Those groups sound just fine alongside the Beatles & Stones.

 

[davideduardo]

Well Tom Kent is not on at a set time, in fact that's his "big thing".

Since we don't seem to have any indication of when he is on other than a few mentions here, we can neither say how many markets he is in nor can we determine what kind of ratings he gets.

"Big thing" is, in this case, hyperbole

Furthermore, why would it be likely that Tom Kent does not test? So all you "professionals" SWEAR by testing, yet one of the fastest growing syndicated DJ's doesn't test.....hmmmm :

"Fastest Growing" is also hyperbole in the absence of any ratings or even a station list.

In any case, Dr. Hagerty gave you the reasoning as to why it would be nearly impossible for a "syndicated" show like this to test. First, in the absence of any ratings numbers, I'd wonder how one would even recruit listeners... it would be an enormously (and prohibitively) expensive recruit.

If testing is the life-blood of radio (God-forbid a song gets aired with the particular "tune-out" percentage, but extra commercials are good),

Commercials are necessary to sustain a station. Bad songs are a detriment to the same goal.

and it was referenced several times in the other thread that virtually ALL stations, in MOST markets tests (I remember because I was called out several times by stating I did not believe this fact) then there is a disconnect in your comment.

I, for one, said that major stations in the larger rated markets test. The smaller the market, or the smaller the station, the less affordable a test becomes. A test in New York cost virtually the same (five or take a few thousand dollars) as one in Birmingham. The smaller market may have slightly lower costs for incentives and meeting room facilities, but likely will have higher recruit costs due to the lack of a local recruiter and established "lists" to recruit from.

Therefore, one of two conclusions could be drawn:
1) Either testing is useless, and success can be found in actually deviating from the standard norm of classic hits, OR
2) If he does test, Tom Kent's testing of music to appeal nationally, has far different results than other stations using the format. Therefore, it reasserts my believe that the reason songs are "blacklisted" is not because they are "bad", but because they never get tested in the first place.

Neither of the above is a logical conclusion.

Testing is of value, but is done only where affordable.

All potentially playable songs have been tested over and over in different markets. But when you test a particular song several times, and it gets stinkier with age, you cease to waste money on it and move on to other potentially playable songs.

You'll disagree with every word I say, but whatever.....

Indeed, I do. Because not a single point makes sense under the light of reality.

 

[michael hagerty]

I don't know Charlie's business model, but I've read Tom's. Your station can have him for (and he puts this in all-caps boldface) low cash or (again all-caps boldface) low barter.

Unlike most syndicators, there is no list of stations on the website (or if there is, it is so inconspicuous that I missed it). Usually, program distributors put key stations on the home page, and include massive doses of ratings "before and after" numbers.

I know what that says to me...

Again, let me say I'm a big fan of Tom's.

The flashing red light for me is KOOL here in Phoenix, widely regarded as one of the better Classic Hits stations. They had Tom Kent 7-midnight weeknights for about two years. They recently dropped the show, and not only reclaimed the timeslot by going local rather than syndicated, but have done so with a live jock rather than voicetracking.

That's a major increase in expense. Obviously, KOOL felt they could come out ahead despite that. If you're losing markets like Phoenix and stations like KOOL, it's hard to sustain huge, rapid or any growth.