As I've said in other threads, KLOS has an equally strong heritage, and it's facing a very similar fate for the same reason. The music has evolved, the audience has evolved, and the radio marketplace has evolved. That's the nature of things. Nothing stays the same forever, as much as we'd like it to.
-
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
Classic Rock: Evolve or Die!
- Thread starter semoochie
- Start date
"Red Band Society" is a Fox TV series which aired its series finale Saturday night. It was not successful but at least Fox was nice enough to let us see all the epsidoes that were filmed. As the group of teenagers, minus one member who died, gathered for the last time (as one was going home) on the roof of the hospital where they are patients, they started singing "You Can't Always Get What You Want". The biggest complainer of the group, a beautiful and shallow cheerleader, didn't want to hear any old people's music.
The response from another in the group, "The Stones aren't old! They're classic!" Another said their music will never go out of style. These were teenagers in 2015.
The response from another in the group, "The Stones aren't old! They're classic!" Another said their music will never go out of style. These were teenagers in 2015.
In a dramatic show probably scripted by old phartz.
The Rolling Stones catalog is massive. But, only select songs of theirs still have appeal today.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Hogwash. Most of their songs still have appeal, though a small amount of them don't. But the only ones played today are the ones that the suits picked.
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
Here we have an example of what I have called "dismissal of any fact given in response that you personally disagree with."
The process of music testing has been explained in several threads throughout RD and the methodology certainly should be familiar to Avid by now as a result.
Yet he dismisses that process yet again here by a wave of his hand and the non-factual statement that "the suits" choose the music.
Sir, you continue to insult the professionals on this board as a group by such behavior and I consider such comments on your part to be a de facto "ad hominem" attack on us all.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
And specific (and valid) objections have been raised about the accuracy of the process as it was explained, and the specific (and valid) objections are simply dismissed without rebuttal or explanation.
I'm sorry but simply repeating, ad nauseum, that certain companies pay large sums of money for tests does not prove that the tests are accurate. They only prove that certain companies pay large sums of money for them.
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
It has been explained by David, multiple times, that the accuracy has been proven by replication and by comparing the results of tests between different markets. You are the one who refuses to accept the explanations, sir.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
It has been "explained" that bogus, "stacked deck" tests get the same results wherever they are conducted. That doesn't prove the testing is accurate. It proves that you've successfully rigged the tests to always generate the results that you want.
You have just called me a liar.
You have accused me of "stacking the deck"
You have accused me of cheating stations out of perhaps $50,000,000.
You have said "you've successfully rigged the tests to always generate the results that you want".
What I have done, and I am 100% positive that other radio researchers have done, is to find out the best songs to play for each station's target audience and which songs are negative and will do a station harm. That's the result we want... to know what listeners want to hear and what makes them tune out. We don't give a s---t which songs pass and which songs play. But we passionately care about finding out what listeners do want to hear directly from them.
You persist in criticizing proven, verified and accepted research methods, yet you suggest no better method. All you can do is besmirch our honor, our reputations, our professionalism and the love of creating successful, well-listened-to radio stations.
I've been through a lot in a 55 year career, but you are the most evil, negative person I have ever, ever, ever encountered.
You have simply stated you don't agree with the explanations. But you disagree with everything radio does, and think we are all morons. So that is nothing new.
The proof is simple: test, and ratings are retained or increased. Don't test and they go down. No better proof.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
No one in this thread, or any other thread, has produced a link to a "single credible study".
That is a gross exaggeration, and another lie. I don't like much of anything on the radio nowadays because too many stations are just cookie-cutter clones of every other station, but that's not the same as disagreeing with everything radio does. And I don't think everyone in radio is a moron. I've made that clear. I think many people in radio are incapable of independent thought, but that's a different thing.
But since I think that the ratings themselves are bogus, even though the advertising industry has managed to sell enough advertisers on believing they they aren't, using the manipulations of the ratings as proof that the manipulations are sound is testing one bogus thing (song testing) by the results of another bogus thing (the ratings).
Last edited:
Nice dodge. You're the one attacking accepted studies. But you have no facts to back up your attacks. You don't even have any facts to demonstrate or prove why the studies you're attacking are, as you say, "stacked." It's all made up nonsense.
That's actually not true. There are original stations in your market, stations that do pretty unique things that are not repeated anywhere, and you don't like them because of their politics, or because they don't suit your specific taste in music. You have lots of reasons why you don't like things. You seem to have an entitlement mentality, that you're entitled to have a certain type of radio, that does what you like, regardless of what the owners of those stations do.
Last edited:
All the credibility we need is seeing that stations that are otherwise competently run which research their music perform better than those that don't research. Our measurement standard is Nielsen, the direct account cash register and gross sales revenue. There are no other or better ways to measure a radio station. Period.
The ratings are not bogus, and you have not presented any evidence of such other than your opinion that all research done by radio is flawed. Advertisers are very demanding on the performance of electronic measurement going back to the congressional hearings in the 50's and the MRC is one of the most demanding of any self-regulatory bodies in any industry and is peopled with some of the best minds in statistics, polling and research in the industry.
Your idea of some kind of conspiracy by agencies to sell through flawed ratings data is beyond absurd. Agencies are also evaluated by internal procedures at most large clients, and the larger clients have very sophisticated systems to do this and to track ad campaigns vs. consumer awareness, sales and other metrics.
You don't aggree. Fine. But you have no data to present to the rest of the room that makes your case, so you are like a little child having a tantrum because things are not the way that you want them. What is most objectionable is that every time one of your non-issues is shown to be wrong or unproven, you question the honesty, ethics and professionalism of the people involved.
Now we have your accusation of agency "manipulation" of the ratings data. Absurd.
I notice that Avid has chosen to ignore this request.
I would expand on this to say
TRUTH for AVID: what I say, and it needs no proof or positive results.
BOGUS: What everybody else says, even if there are documented ratings results, local direct sales results and other indications of audience size and satisfaction.
Hogwash?
Here are the Stones tracks I currently have in my database. Not their entire catalog, of course, but these in my OWN research (not music testing) seem to have appeal. And, some of these titles are very borderline.
Rolling Stones (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
Rolling Stones 19th Nervous Breakdown
Rolling Stones Angie
Rolling Stones As Tears Go By
Rolling Stones Beast Of Burden [Short Version]
Rolling Stones Bitch [Single Mix]
Rolling Stones Brown Sugar [Single Version]
Rolling Stones Doom And Gloom [Radio Mix]
Rolling Stones Emotional Rescue [Short Version]
Rolling Stones Get Off Of My Cloud
Rolling Stones Gimme Shelter
Rolling Stones Honky Tonk Women
Rolling Stones It's Only Rock 'N Roll (But I Like It) [Edited Version]
Rolling Stones Jumpin' Jack Flash
Rolling Stones Let's Spend The Night Together [Single Version]
Rolling Stones Miss You [Single Version]
Rolling Stones Paint It, Black
Rolling Stones Ruby Tuesday
Rolling Stones Shattered [Short Version]
Rolling Stones She's So Cold [Radio Edit]
Rolling Stones Start Me Up
Rolling Stones Street Fighting Man [Single Mix]
Rolling Stones Sympathy For The Devil
Rolling Stones Time Is On My Side [Single Version]
Rolling Stones Tumbling Dice
Rolling Stones Under My Thumb
Rolling Stones Waiting On A Friend [Radio Edit]
Rolling Stones Wild Horses [Radio Edit]
Rolling Stones You Can't Always Get What You Want [Single Version]
I am also a big fan of promo edit and mixes. A couple are clean 45 dubs (Brown Sugar/Bitch) and the rest are recreated or available for online purchase.
Here are the Stones tracks I currently have in my database. Not their entire catalog, of course, but these in my OWN research (not music testing) seem to have appeal. And, some of these titles are very borderline.
Rolling Stones (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
Rolling Stones 19th Nervous Breakdown
Rolling Stones Angie
Rolling Stones As Tears Go By
Rolling Stones Beast Of Burden [Short Version]
Rolling Stones Bitch [Single Mix]
Rolling Stones Brown Sugar [Single Version]
Rolling Stones Doom And Gloom [Radio Mix]
Rolling Stones Emotional Rescue [Short Version]
Rolling Stones Get Off Of My Cloud
Rolling Stones Gimme Shelter
Rolling Stones Honky Tonk Women
Rolling Stones It's Only Rock 'N Roll (But I Like It) [Edited Version]
Rolling Stones Jumpin' Jack Flash
Rolling Stones Let's Spend The Night Together [Single Version]
Rolling Stones Miss You [Single Version]
Rolling Stones Paint It, Black
Rolling Stones Ruby Tuesday
Rolling Stones Shattered [Short Version]
Rolling Stones She's So Cold [Radio Edit]
Rolling Stones Start Me Up
Rolling Stones Street Fighting Man [Single Mix]
Rolling Stones Sympathy For The Devil
Rolling Stones Time Is On My Side [Single Version]
Rolling Stones Tumbling Dice
Rolling Stones Under My Thumb
Rolling Stones Waiting On A Friend [Radio Edit]
Rolling Stones Wild Horses [Radio Edit]
Rolling Stones You Can't Always Get What You Want [Single Version]
I am also a big fan of promo edit and mixes. A couple are clean 45 dubs (Brown Sugar/Bitch) and the rest are recreated or available for online purchase.
- Status