Classic Hits: Evolution or Revolution?

[OldNumber7]

What was a "hit" in 1975, or 1962, or 1955 is irrelevant when it comes to what should be on a classic hits (or oldies station) in 2013. That is my argument. Just because a song was #1 nearly 40 years ago has almost no bearing on if it should be played. If that was the case, why isn't K-Earth or CBS-FM playing "Honey" by Bobby Goldsboro (5 weeks at #1)? I'm all for playing as many songs as possible...

Play all the tested songs, but add one or two "lost hits" every hour to make things listenable. Is that too hard to ask for? Every song should be played, some more than others. If managed right and played at the right time, this can be accomplished.

Many stations in small markets do this already...what's the problem??

Would an NFL team add its third-string tackle to the starting offense? If there is no need to have a weak alternative why have one? If I turn on the radio when you are playing one of the lost hits and I punch the station, didn't you just screw yourself?

 

[michael hagerty]

What was a "hit" in 1975, or 1962, or 1955 is irrelevant when it comes to what should be on a classic hits (or oldies station) in 2013. That is my argument. Just because a song was #1 nearly 40 years ago has almost no bearing on if it should be played. If that was the case, why isn't K-Earth or CBS-FM playing "Honey" by Bobby Goldsboro (5 weeks at #1)? I'm all for playing as many songs as possible...

Play all the tested songs, but add one or two "lost hits" every hour to make things listenable. Is that too hard to ask for? Every song should be played, some more than others. If managed right and played at the right time, this can be accomplished.

Many stations in small markets do this already...what's the problem??

The problem is your two "lost hits" per hour by definition either have to be untested or have tested poorly, or else they'd already be on.

You thus make things unlistenable for a larger percentage of the audience than you would normally risk. And at twice an hour, you've done it 48 times a day, 336 times in a week....17,250 times in a year.

Stations in small markets have less immediate competition (but can get their tails handed to them in the long term) and less frequent or no rating periods.

 

[oldies76]

Tastes change and people do evolve - using charts from 40 years ago as a programming guide is like using a Rand McNally atlas from 1973 on a road trip in 2013.

And if you are driving cross country, it'll work just fine, since most of the interstate system was built before 1973.

 

[oldies76]

Would an NFL team add its third-string tackle to the starting offense? If there is no need to have a weak alternative why have one? If I turn on the radio when you are playing one of the lost hits and I punch the station, didn't you just screw yourself?

No, but the Jets probably would have taken the division if Tim Tebow replaced Mark Sanchez early in the season.

You may punch the station, but countless others will welcome something different and not the same ole, same ole that they are tired of. Statistical replication means nothing in each individual's personal choice of music. Everyone has their favorite songs, and many of them are not being aired TODAY, simple as that.

 

[michael hagerty]

Tastes change and people do evolve - using charts from 40 years ago as a programming guide is like using a Rand McNally atlas from 1973 on a road trip in 2013.

And if you are driving cross country, it'll work just fine, since most of the interstate system was built before 1973.

Apart from the part where you need to identify logical and safe places for gas, food, rest stops and lodging, which has changed dramatically in 40 years.

And until you enter urban areas and need to navigate those. Let's say you're on your way to Los Angeles from somewhere east of Phoenix on Interstate 10.

With the 1973 road map, you'll get off I-10 50 miles south of Phoenix and drive for two hours to reach Phoenix proper as the old route takes you north through Coolidge, Chandler, Mesa and Tempe on country roads that are now heavily congested suburban and urban streets.

Once in Phoenix, you'll drive through some very bad neighborhoods that once had Howard Johnsons, Holiday and Ramada Inns, drive 60 miles northwest to a little town called Wickenburg and then 92 miles through completely deserted land to where I-10 resumed back in 1973. You'll have travelled 150 miles rather than 90, it will have taken four hours instead of an hour and a half.

All told, just on this part of the journey approaching and leaving Phoenix, you will have made your trip at least four hours longer.

 

[michael hagerty]

Would an NFL team add its third-string tackle to the starting offense? If there is no need to have a weak alternative why have one? If I turn on the radio when you are playing one of the lost hits and I punch the station, didn't you just screw yourself?

No, but the Jets probably would have taken the division if Tim Tebow replaced Mark Sanchez early in the season.

You may punch the station, but countless others will welcome something different and not the same ole, same ole that they are tired of. Statistical replication means nothing in each individual's personal choice of music. Everyone has their favorite songs, and many of them are not being aired TODAY, simple as that.

Oh, they won't be countless.

See, the thing is, you're starting with the number of people that are listening when the untested or poorly testing record plays. Some of those people leave. There is nothing that tells the people who like the record (if you could possibly know who they were) that it's playing so they could hurry up, turn on the radio, tune to your station and take the place of those who left.

For the next three minutes (a small window) you're at a net loss of listeners unless the number of people tuning in who stay when they hear that song is the same as or greater than the tuneout. And if you know your audience like you should, odds are the people tuning in are regular listeners and the same percentage of them are as likely to tune out over the song as the audience you had when the record started.

And good luck getting the audience who left earlier than they normally would have back. Especially if you're doing this to them several times a day.

 

[CTListener]

Would an NFL team add its third-string tackle to the starting offense? If there is no need to have a weak alternative why have one? If I turn on the radio when you are playing one of the lost hits and I punch the station, didn't you just screw yourself?

No, but the Jets probably would have taken the division if Tim Tebow replaced Mark Sanchez early in the season.

This may be the single most laughable assertion in this entire thread!

 

[oldies76]

This may be the single most laughable assertion in this entire thread!

The Steelers weren't the ones laughing at the end of their 2011 season in the playoffs against Denver!

 

[oldies76]

For the next three minutes (a small window) you're at a net loss of listeners unless the number of people tuning in who stay when they hear that song is the same as or greater than the tuneout. And if you know your audience like you should, odds are the people tuning in are regular listeners and the same percentage of them are as likely to tune out over the song as the audience you had when the record started.

You seem to forget that there are hundreds upon hundreds of other regular classic hit songs that are not being played. We're not even mentioning the cheesy types, the novelties, the country crossovers or the "Billy Don't Be A Hero's" or even the "Honey's"....we're talking about the other stack of records that just don't get played that would be just as acceptable as the "tested" ones.

When was the last time you heard "One Thing Leads to Another" from 1983?? A great song! How about "Der Kommissar" or "Overkill", or even "Major Tom"?? All good cuts from 1983 that should be played today....but are not.

 

[RIN3GUY]

Totally with you, oldies -- There is no way that listener likes and dislikes are anywhere near as cut and dried as has been implied. First, there is no way they could test half of the music from 1964-89 that deserves to be tested. Second, there is no way they could ever sample more than 1% of a local listening audience. I would like to know the methodology of how this is done, how results are tabulated, analyzed and applied. This playlist straitjacket with no wiggle room is of the industry's own making and was not foisted upon them by listeners.

These people haven't had decades of exposure to these songs. They're relatively fresh to them.

I totally agree, Michael! For that very reason, at least a few "lost hits" need to be included! Perhaps some of these could be tested for "likes" and "dislikes" on station websites, or simply consult You Tube, as Billboard is now doing.

Any song to hit the top 10-20 from 1964 to 1985 is game. Play all the tested songs, but add one or two "lost hits" every hour to make things listenable. Is that too hard to ask for? Every song should be played, some more than others. If managed right and played at the right time, this can be accomplished.

Many stations in small markets do this already...what's the problem??

You may punch the station, but countless others will welcome something different and not the same ole, same ole that they are tired of. Statistical replication means nothing in each individual's personal choice of music. Everyone has their favorite songs, and many of them are not being aired TODAY, simple as that.

Again, I am 100% with you, oldies! Even just one lost hit every hour or two would be enough keep seasoned listeners like me (and every other music lover I know) both enthused and engaged with our local stations all day long. Today I haven't switched on KJMK even once because their online playlist shows the same old, run-of-the mill '6 & 7'.

We are not suggesting to play "deep cuts" that tested and/or charted poorly, just 5% airplay of the legitimate hits that tested borderline well.
I have already listed several dozen worthy candidates on previous posts for your perusal.

 

[CTListener]

This may be the single most laughable assertion in this entire thread!

The Steelers weren't the ones laughing at the end of their 2011 season in the playoffs against Denver!

No, but the Patriots exposed him the following weekend and it was all downhill from there.

 

[michael hagerty]

For the next three minutes (a small window) you're at a net loss of listeners unless the number of people tuning in who stay when they hear that song is the same as or greater than the tuneout. And if you know your audience like you should, odds are the people tuning in are regular listeners and the same percentage of them are as likely to tune out over the song as the audience you had when the record started.

You seem to forget that there are hundreds upon hundreds of other regular classic hit songs that are not being played. We're not even mentioning the cheesy types, the novelties, the country crossovers or the "Billy Don't Be A Hero's" or even the "Honey's"....we're talking about the other stack of records that just don't get played that would be just as acceptable as the "tested" ones.

When was the last time you heard "One Thing Leads to Another" from 1983?? A great song! How about "Der Kommissar" or "Overkill", or even "Major Tom"?? All good cuts from 1983 that should be played today....but are not.

You don't know whether any record is "just as acceptable" as the ones you test until you test it. And by definition, you're suggesting playing either songs that haven't been tested or didn't test well. The first is Russian Roulette...there's a bullet in one of those chambers, and it could go off. The second is a self-inflicted wound. You're playing something that a percentage of your audience that you normally would consider too large to risk has told you not to play.

 

[Biondi4Mayor]

It's been put in bold type.

In LA (KRTH) and New York (CBS-FM) classic hits is 54% male, 46% female on average.

So? You're quotoing me as if you're "showing" me something - I didn't bring up the demos. Tell that to Hagerty, as that seems to be another slight contradiction in facts here.

 

[oldies76]

Totally with you, oldies -- There is no way that listener likes and dislikes are anywhere near as cut and dried as has been implied. First, there is no way they could test half of the music from 1964-89 that deserves to be tested. Second, there is no way they could ever sample more than 1% of a local listening audience. I would like to know the methodology of how this is done, how results are tabulated, analyzed and applied. This playlist straitjacket with no wiggle room is of the industry's own making and was not foisted upon them by listeners.

Thanks RIN3GUY, in a market like L.A. or NYC, That percentage has to be more like .001% or lower!

It's claimed that when testing is performed over and over monthly with supposedly different groups of people, that the results are generally the same (based on similiar songs being presented) so the assumption is that the "results" are replicated over and over again, for the entire listening audience. This basically means that the entire listening audience for a station like KRTH will for the most part, approve of the same songs being presented with little room for deviation.

I just don't buy that.

 

[oldies76]

For the next three minutes (a small window) you're at a net loss of listeners unless the number of people tuning in who stay when they hear that song is the same as or greater than the tuneout. And if you know your audience like you should, odds are the people tuning in are regular listeners and the same percentage of them are as likely to tune out over the song as the audience you had when the record started.

You seem to forget that there are hundreds upon hundreds of other regular classic hit songs that are not being played. We're not even mentioning the cheesy types, the novelties, the country crossovers or the "Billy Don't Be A Hero's" or even the "Honey's"....we're talking about the other stack of records that just don't get played that would be just as acceptable as the "tested" ones.

When was the last time you heard "One Thing Leads to Another" from 1983?? A great song! How about "Der Kommissar" or "Overkill", or even "Major Tom"?? All good cuts from 1983 that should be played today....but are not.

You don't know whether any record is "just as acceptable" as the ones you test until you test it. And by definition, you're suggesting playing either songs that haven't been tested or didn't test well. The first is Russian Roulette...there's a bullet in one of those chambers, and it could go off. The second is a self-inflicted wound. You're playing something that a percentage of your audience that you normally would consider too large to risk has told you not to play.

So you believe that the 1983 hits I mentioned would not test well?? I find that very hard to believe.

 

[oldies76]

No, but the Patriots exposed him the following weekend and it was all downhill from there.

Thanks to the Jets ignoring his talent.

 

[michael hagerty]

Totally with you, oldies -- There is no way that listener likes and dislikes are anywhere near as cut and dried as has been implied. First, there is no way they could test half of the music from 1964-89 that deserves to be tested. Second, there is no way they could ever sample more than 1% of a local listening audience. I would like to know the methodology of how this is done, how results are tabulated, analyzed and applied.

Which David explained at some length a month or more ago.

This playlist straitjacket with no wiggle room is of the industry's own making and was not foisted upon them by listeners.

Utter crap. Again, the PDs would love to have more material to work with. The biggest fear is what happens when you can't replace what burns and ages out.

These people haven't had decades of exposure to these songs. They're relatively fresh to them.

I totally agree, Michael! For that very reason, at least a few "lost hits" need to be included! Perhaps some of these could be tested for "likes" and "dislikes" on station websites, or simply consult You Tube, as Billboard is now doing.

Out of context. If you go back to the post that was taken from, I was saying that the typical 45 year old female listener, who was born in 1968 and started high school in 1982, didn't hear most of what's on Classic Hits radio today as currents or oldies on CHR radio, and those tracks were gone from AC by the time she migrated there in the 90s. As a result, the songs Classic Hits plays now are not songs she's had decades of exposure to. It explains the lack of burn.

Any song to hit the top 10-20 from 1964 to 1985 is game. Play all the tested songs, but add one or two "lost hits" every hour to make things listenable. Is that too hard to ask for? Every song should be played, some more than others. If managed right and played at the right time, this can be accomplished.

Many stations in small markets do this already...what's the problem??

You may punch the station, but countless others will welcome something different and not the same ole, same ole that they are tired of. Statistical replication means nothing in each individual's personal choice of music. Everyone has their favorite songs, and many of them are not being aired TODAY, simple as that.

Again, I am 100% with you, oldies! Even just one lost hit an hour would be enough keep seasoned listeners like me (and every other music lover I know) both enthused and engaged with our local station all day long. Today I haven't switched on KJMK even once because their online playlist shows the same old, run-of-the mill '6 & 7'.

We are not suggesting to play "deep cuts" that tested and/or charted poorly, just 5% airplay of the legitimate hits that tested borderline well.
I have already listed several dozen worthy candidates on previous posts for your perusal.

"Borderline well" is an interesting concept. If it was thought to be borderline but worth the risk, it would be in rotation.

Nothing has changed about that song. All you'd be doing is increasing the number of people you're willing to have tune out once per hour. 24 times a day. 168 times a week. 8,736 times a year. When you could do that....never.

 

[michael hagerty]

It's been put in bold type.

In LA (KRTH) and New York (CBS-FM) classic hits is 54% male, 46% female on average.

So? You're quotoing me as if you're "showing" me something - I didn't bring up the demos. Tell that to Hagerty, as that seems to be another slight contradiction in facts here.

David, Biondi wants to make a federal case over my having typed "Classic Hits" when I meant "Classic Rock" or vice-versa...and, apparently my reference to your earlier KLOS/KSWD 60/40 gender split.

Why don't we have a yawning emoticon?

 

[michael hagerty]

For the next three minutes (a small window) you're at a net loss of listeners unless the number of people tuning in who stay when they hear that song is the same as or greater than the tuneout. And if you know your audience like you should, odds are the people tuning in are regular listeners and the same percentage of them are as likely to tune out over the song as the audience you had when the record started.

You seem to forget that there are hundreds upon hundreds of other regular classic hit songs that are not being played. We're not even mentioning the cheesy types, the novelties, the country crossovers or the "Billy Don't Be A Hero's" or even the "Honey's"....we're talking about the other stack of records that just don't get played that would be just as acceptable as the "tested" ones.

When was the last time you heard "One Thing Leads to Another" from 1983?? A great song! How about "Der Kommissar" or "Overkill", or even "Major Tom"?? All good cuts from 1983 that should be played today....but are not.

You don't know whether any record is "just as acceptable" as the ones you test until you test it. And by definition, you're suggesting playing either songs that haven't been tested or didn't test well. The first is Russian Roulette...there's a bullet in one of those chambers, and it could go off. The second is a self-inflicted wound. You're playing something that a percentage of your audience that you normally would consider too large to risk has told you not to play.

So you believe that the 1983 hits I mentioned would not test well?? I find that very hard to believe.

That's not what I said.

Stay with me here, Oldies.

You have suggested playing songs that are "just as acceptable as the tested ones". That suggests that they are untested.

You'll never know whether that's true until you test them. If they are just as acceptable, they'll go into active rotation.

If you go ahead and play the song without testing it, you don't know what the negatives and the positives are. Maybe you'll get lucky. But again, that pretty well describes Russian Roulette. You're taking a risk you don't need to take, but maybe the gun won't go off.

 

[michael hagerty]

duplicate post removed