Do we really need to change? No...

[ROCKTHEMIC]

Here's a long thought that will fluff up some feathers...

Does radio need to become something it isn't to survive? Nope.

Did radio fall out of favor when the Television came along? Nope.

Should radio stations have a web presence? Sure! Technology has provided us with the opportunity to put a face on a non visual medium, but nothing more! Make money with it, sure... Don't try to become something your not you will fail!

Can we survive without streaming, pod casts, cel phone radio, etc. Yes!

While the industry is freaking out and looking for ways to become something we are not... maybe we should focus on what we are!

Radio is still the best bargain. From Mary Beth Garber...

* Did you know that MYSPACE.COM considers Radio the media role equivalent of a social network? They label Radio usage as "Passion," along with myspace.com and other social networks. They label TV as "passive." They call newspaper "practical." If you want your message delivered with an emotional connection, use Radio.

Bring back the passion! Radio is the reason for everything else. Someone dreamed up a way to package all their favorite songs in a device that they can carry and recall what they want when they want it. The ipod was born. The Ipod got old, back to radio! I can play all my favorite songs from a thing called a cassette/ disk and put it in my car or personal listening device when I want to hear the songs I like the best. The cassette/ cd was born. The cassette/ cd got old, back the radio!

We play music, we give the weather, we give away free stuff, we....do other stuff too.... We have the power to change the world again!

Be on the look out for the person who comes up with a sure fire way to get people interested in radio in a way that has never seen or heard before! I haven't yet, I think I've come close a few times! In the late 80's I put on a paper a format called "Classic Jams", my boss thought I was crazy! I believed him, I was an idiot! I'm not giving up!

The wheel will always be round, it's the best shape and it serves its purpose. Will the wheel be replaced? Nope.

You don't have to believe what I'm telling you, it's my story and I'm sticking to it! Call me crazy but some day you'll want to pay me 6 figures to fix your radio stations with my revolutionary trademarked yet to be discovered idea's!

Let's focus on the thing we do best, radio!

Rock on!

 

[SirRoxalot]

Rock, I love your attitude, and hope that you succeed in selling it. Right now, it ain't happening. Corporate decrees are cutting live bodies indiscriminately, and crippling the very programming that you think is going to keep radio viable.

We play music, we give the weather, we give away free stuff, we....do other stuff too.... We have the power to change the world again!

It's pretty hard for a voice track to give ACCURATE weather, give away free stuff, connect to the listeners with phoners, and "do other stuff too.

Be on the look out for the person who comes up with a sure fire way to get people interested in radio in a way that has never seen or heard before! I haven't yet, I think I've come close a few times! In the late 80's I put on a paper a format called "Classic Jams", my boss thought I was crazy! I believed him, I was an idiot! I'm not giving up!

I hope that some bright young mind WILL come up with a format that will get people interested in radio again. AQH share has been dropping since the '80s, and radio has nearly abandoned - and been abandoned by - the majority of Millennials.

Let's focus on the thing we do best, radio!

Rock on!

I hope that there are still people around who remember how to do live radio by the time the current crisis is over. Good luck. Maybe you'll be the one who'll finally convince the suits that it takes good PEOPLE to do good radio, and that radio needs a sense of immediacy to compete with pure music delivery systems.

 

[TheBigA]

Did radio fall out of favor when the Television came along? Nope.

Actually, it did.

Radio fell into a terrible funk after World War 2. It really didn't know what to do. All of its exclusive programs, from Bob Hope to the Grand Ole Opry, moved to TV. The popular music of the period was awful. All the money left radio for TV. Even Alan Freed needed to do TV to pay his bills, and did late night radio for fun. It took about ten years for radio to reinvent itself. By 1957, it was on it's way to a new life, thanks mainly to Top 40 music.

I believe we're on the tail end of that ride. It would have died 15 years ago, but has been on life support since then.

Radio needs something new to make itself relevant to the people. Playing hits and giving stuff away simply isn't enough.

Hey look! I love old stuff. There are jazz clubs in New York that play music just as Louis Armstrong did 70 years ago, with all the fire and passion that only Pops could. And the crowds in those clubs stand up and cheer! But no one knows these musicians, they don't get played on the radio, and the general public walking along the street don't even know what's going on in the club they're walking past. That is radio right now. There are thousands of DJs pouring out their their soul with all the passion they can give, and they're getting 2 shares. They do all the prep, go to the show meetings, get the best interviews, and still can't beat the local AC jukebox.

Here's the thing: There was a time when being a talented trumpet player meant something. Now a guy with no music knowledge can become a rap star and make millions. There was a time when a DJ with passion for music and the radio could attract an audience. Now, everyone has their own personal "favorites" and that's all they care about. They live in their own world, with their own friends and social groups, and the guy on the radio is on the outside. We have gone through a sociological revolution in just the past five years. You can ignore it, or you can deny it. But it has happened. Radio needs to find a new role in this world, because giving the time and weather plus a CD giveaway won't matter when the audience gets everything they want from their phone.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Hold the Phone

You forget one thing. Radio requires NO interactivity once you turn it on. When you're busy doing other things - which is MOST of the time - radio delivers. You don't have to fumble with buttons, menues, screens, browsers - whatever.

What's the biggest impediment to radio as a delivery system? Programming that listeners no longer find interesting.

Good programming is what radio has ALWAYS been about. Radio's problem today isn't competition from other media. Radio's problem today is programming that's not relevant to the listeners. The immediacy, the humanity, the connectedness that people now find in Facebook and other social networking sites USED to be part of radio. It's pretty hard for a voice track to convey "immediacy". Music research that depends on 10-second song snippets generates playlists that leave listeners less than excited. If half the stations that touted "better variety" actually PLAYED better variety, perhaps TSL and AQH ratings would stop declining.

Rock, the above post from TheBigA is a taste of what you face when you talk to corporate. See what I'm talkin' about?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

This has the possibility of being an interesting thread.

I dare say that if the four of us posting here so far were invited to be on a panel presentation to a civic club, a chamber of commerce, or an industry convention, and our assignment was to, around the table, get up and explain "What is Radio Today?"...... we would not agree on WHAT radio is today.

Does radio need to change?

How would we know. We can't even define WHAT radio is today.

Here is my profound declaration:

Every business I have watched through the years and/or participated in has gone through changes, continues to go through changes. Radio. Retailing. Property Rental. Hospitals. Nursing homes. Crop dusting. Computer programming. Manufacturing. Coal mining. Church and religion.

So, to debate the original post: Radio WILL change. Radio HAS to change.

Sometimes the appropriate change is to undo a previous change and reclaim that element which once worked, but was abandoned.

Answer #1: The most successful radio HAS TO BE "foreground" radio. There will always be room for some "background" stations but these will be the fringe audiences. The fact that the top-rated stations today are "background"*** programming demonstrates how lame the industry is at coming to grips with "foreground" radio.

***If playing 25 minutes of basically unmolested music followed by an orgy of stop-set commercials is the best ratings getter, BACKGROUND currently rules.

 

[redneckriviera]

I did a "guest lecturer" shot at the local university the other week and gave the kids a quiz to kick off the conversation. In one column were the numbers

96%
93%
57%
53%

... and in the second column were the names of four media:

internet
newspaper
television
radio

... and the task was to match each media with the percentage of weekly American users, per latest estimates.

The answers? Television @ 96%, radio @ 93%, newspaper @ 57%, and internet @53%. Most students had the percentages for radio and internet directly interchanged, though a few had radio at the bottom. None had radio positioned correctly.

Chances are that most broadcasters would fail this same little quiz. Like most people, we fail to factor in the cost of internet "receivers" and "service," and it doesn't occur to us that the national median HOUSEHOLD income of around $40,000 net--about 33-hundred bucks a month--means that after paying a grand or two for rent, a grand for family health insurance, another grand for food/utilities/clothing & other "necessities"--a big chunk of humanity can't drop a grand or two on a computer or pay Verizon $24 a month for online service.

But they can listen to the radio for free. And they do.

Yeah, radio has a few problems. The current ownership policy (oligopoly) is broken. And, yeah, we depend too much on the slickness of digital automation & networking--so we've minimized the personal interaction with our audiences that many of us consider the medium's core strength.

But mostly we have a perception problem. We're a lot stronger than most people think. Including us.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Hold the Phone

What's the biggest impediment to radio as a delivery system? Programming that listeners no longer find interesting.

There, in my opinion, is your error.

The issue radio has is that there are many, many new choices for leisure time entertainment... from iPods to video games and 1000 cable channels... and each part gets sliced ever thinner.

The issue is not radio programming per se. It is greater competition.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Error Correction

What's the biggest impediment to radio as a delivery system? Programming that listeners no longer find interesting.

There, in my opinion, is your error.

The issue radio has is that there are many, many new choices for leisure time entertainment... from iPods to video games and 1000 cable channels... and each part gets sliced ever thinner.

The issue is not radio programming per se. It is greater competition.

There, in my opinion, is YOUR error.

There have always been other activities - many of which people participated in WHILE listening to the radio. Nobody's sat in front of the speakers raptly listening to the radio since 1950. Radio has been the companion to other activities for several generations.

Most of the "other choices" you cite require interactive response. One of radio's strengths is that it doesn't - as long as the programming continues to interest, amuse, inform, entertain, or otherwise please the listener.

There's always been competition for radio. The problem with radio now is that programming isn't serving the listener as well as it once did. What are the complaints? "Too many commercials". "Too much repetition". "Inane disk jockeys". All of those are programming problems.

The concentration of commercials into clusters impacts different formats differently - but you'd never discern that from "standard practice". As a group, 12-30s won't sit through six minutes of commercials. As a group, 35-64s probably will if they like the programming that surrounds it.

"Too much repetition" doesn't necessarily mean that listeners don't want "the hits". It does mean that the OTHER songs are being repeated far too often. It's not likely that most of the "A" rotation songs cause that response, it's the endless repetition of the "B", "C", and "D" and "E" rotation songs that are heard day after day after day. All of that is based on music tests that play a :10 second clip to whatever "audience" is willing to give up a slice of their life to participate - which doesn't include anybody who's too busy to bother for the pittance of "reward" involved.

"Inane disk jockeys" is partly jocks who are not relatable to the audience because they're VT'd, out of the market, formatted to death, or relegated to reading incessant liner cards. Half of the "inane disk jockies" are actually pre-produced liners. There's middle ground between "tighten, lighten, brighten" and Arnie "Woo-Woo" Ginsberg. Use live bodies, give them a chance to entertain (within reason), and listeners will have a reason to tune in.

Continue to reduce radio to a digital jukebox, and you'll eventually lose to other digital jukeboxes that the listener can program themselves.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Error Correction

There's always been competition for radio. The problem with radio now is that programming isn't serving the listener as well as it once did. What are the complaints? "Too many commercials". "Too much repetition". "Inane disk jockeys". All of those are programming problems.

And all have existed since the 50's. The difference is that now we know what each comment means; they reflect a perception, and usually not a reality based on the term used.

The concentration of commercials into clusters impacts different formats differently - but you'd never discern that from "standard practice". As a group, 12-30s won't sit through six minutes of commercials. As a group, 35-64s probably will if they like the programming that surrounds it.

As a group, people who like a station and who are not near a pushbutton will not leave during a stopset. Listeners are not dumb; they know commercials are part of any commercial station... the fee they pay to listen.

Minute by minute measurement shows that tune-out during a stopset of 5 to 6 minutes is minimal. Much greater tune-out comes during long DJ rants or when a bad record comes on.

Of course, a station with way too many commercials overall just does not get tuned in to. Time and time again we see that fewer stops beats more stops, even if shorter.

"Too much repetition" doesn't necessarily mean that listeners don't want "the hits". It does mean that the OTHER songs are being repeated far too often. It's not likely that most of the "A" rotation songs cause that response, it's the endless repetition of the "B", "C", and "D" and "E" rotation songs that are heard day after day after day.

That's just not true. The perception of repetition comes from playing bad or weak songs or too many unfamiliar songs, thus the listeners does not hear favorites all the time. Generally, this playing of bad and weak songs occurs with new adds, and songs that burn as powers. Wanna' hear "La Macarena" again?

All of that is based on music tests that play a :10 second clip to whatever "audience" is willing to give up a slice of their life to participate - which doesn't include anybody who's too busy to bother for the pittance of "reward" involved.

To most people, around $100 is not a pittance for two hour's of attendance where, perhaps for the only time in recent memory, their opinion counts. Since tests are done in the evening or weekends or by appointment or even online, it is not an inconvencience, even for those who work.

And familiar songs are generally scored before 6 seconds have elapsed. Most people know lots of songs by the first few notes even before the artist sings. Any more than about 8 seconds creates fatigue... 10 seconds is way too long.

Of course, the obvious element is that people who would participate in testing are the "kind of people" who would also be interested in carrying a meter or filling in a diary. And, of course, they are carefully screened and rescreened.

"Inane disk jockeys" is partly jocks who are not relatable to the audience because they're VT'd, out of the market, formatted to death, or relegated to reading incessant liner cards.

In fact, the DJ negatives don't come from any of those... they come from motor mouth DJs who talk over the starts and finishes of songs and talk too much.

Half of the "inane disk jockies" are actually pre-produced liners.

No, the criticism does not come when the DJ talks very little... and most listeners don't even know what voice tracking is.

There's middle ground between "tighten, lighten, brighten" and Arnie "Woo-Woo" Ginsberg. Use live bodies, give them a chance to entertain (within reason), and listeners will have a reason to tune in.

In some formats, the personality adds to the perceived value. In others, it detracts.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Re: Error Correction

The concentration of commercials into clusters impacts different formats differently - but you'd never discern that from "standard practice". As a group, 12-30s won't sit through six minutes of commercials. As a group, 35-64s probably will if they like the programming that surrounds it.

As a group, people who like a station and who are not near a pushbutton will not leave during a stopset. Listeners are not dumb; they know commercials are part of any commercial station... the fee they pay to listen.

Minute by minute measurement shows that tune-out during a stopset of 5 to 6 minutes is minimal. Much greater tune-out comes during long DJ rants or when a bad record comes on.

You might want to check Arbitron's report entitled "What Happens When the Spots Come On". Their research shows a decided drop in listeners 12-24 as the stopset rolls on. But, then again, who cares about the next generation of listeners. Radio has all but abandoned them anyway.

All of that is based on music tests that play a :10 second clip to whatever "audience" is willing to give up a slice of their life to participate - which doesn't include anybody who's too busy to bother for the pittance of "reward" involved.

To most people, around $100 is not a pittance for two hour's of attendance where, perhaps for the only time in recent memory, their opinion counts. Since tests are done in the evening or weekends or by appointment or even online, it is not an inconvencience, even for those who work.

And familiar songs are generally scored before 6 seconds have elapsed. Most people know lots of songs by the first few notes even before the artist sings. Any more than about 8 seconds creates fatigue... 10 seconds is way too long.

Of course, the obvious element is that people who would participate in testing are the "kind of people" who would also be interested in carrying a meter or filling in a diary. And, of course, they are carefully screened and rescreened.

Anything longer than 8 seconds causes fatigue? Imagine how much "fatigue" 4 minutes of the wrong song causes. Perhaps a little "fatigue" would elicit more meaniful results. If ten seconds is enough to lower a songs perception, perhaps the score isn't really meaningful in the first place.

I know a lot of people who aren't willing to give up an evening of their time - even for $100.00 - because they have so little time with their families. Or, they work second shift. Or, they work two jobs. Or, they're home with the kids while their spouse works evenings. Over-reliance on music testing is part of the problem, not the solution.

"Inane disk jockeys" is partly jocks who are not relatable to the audience because they're VT'd, out of the market, formatted to death, or relegated to reading incessant liner cards.

In fact, the DJ negatives don't come from any of those... they come from motor mouth DJs who talk over the starts and finishes of songs and talk too much.

Well, if the PDs had the time to critique and train talent, that wouldn't be happening, would it? I hear far more DJs with nothing interesting to say than I hear "motor mouth DJs". And, when I say "nothing interesting to say", I mean "reading the liner and/or positioning statement over the 8 second intro". Pre-produced promos between songs get more airtime than the jocks. "Motor mouth DJs". That's funny, David. I can't remember that last time I heard one of those outside morning drive - which is the highest rated daypart of the week.

Half of the "inane disk jockies" are actually pre-produced liners.

No, the criticism does not come when the DJ talks very little... and most listeners don't even know what voice tracking is.

I wasn't talking about VT, I was talking about over-reliance on pre-produced liners. Most listeners don't even know what voice tracking is, but they sure know that they're not hearing the weather, or that it doesn't reflect what's going on outside. They sure know that the guy on the air isn't talking about anything that's going on right now, and they know that nobody answers when they call the station.

There's middle ground between "tighten, lighten, brighten" and Arnie "Woo-Woo" Ginsberg. Use live bodies, give them a chance to entertain (within reason), and listeners will have a reason to tune in.

In some formats, the personality adds to the perceived value. In others, it detracts.

It's nice of you to admit that personality actually adds to the percieved value in at least some formats. If radio doesn't concentrate more on active listening formats, it's never going to compete with other interactive media that allow listeners to control passive listening.

 

[ROCKTHEMIC]

I realize there will be struggles and trials ahead, but I remain positive and look forward to the challenge. I don't think radio needs to change I think it needs to evolve. To what and how? Problem one as I see it... is over saturation. There are way too many radio stations. When I was younger, in the business, the Canadiens had a sweet thing going. There were half as many stations in Canada and jocks were rock stars! It may be time to let natural selection take place and trim back like the auto industry and the retail industry, the radio industry is driven by greed. We have gotten to big for our britches! Smaller companies with an eye on the future focused on development rather than upping their corporate profile will eventually win.

We've seen the begginning...watch the landscape change before your very eyes. Learn, listen, make yourself important, valuable and be smart because now more than ever the weak will be shown the door. With the exception of those who work for managers who don't get it and are wrongly dismissed. They must be the first to go! In response to those motor mouth dj's... They either have nothing of value to share or are not compelling enough as I'm sure it's because they are not being coached correctly or effectively! I contend if a radio station says they talk less it's because their staff is weak and has nothing of value to spotlight.

We will rebound, we've just lost our way and our identity is a bit fuzzy! Once again radio has an opportunity! Sieze the day!

Let's look at it from a different angle, The world according to Garp! Stand on the desk and get a fresh prespective!

I was hoping this conversation would be more exploritory! Join me and take a serious look at what can be done and not the doom and gloom of what has failed. If we know why it failed we know not to do it again and move on!

Let's form an informal committe of forum goers and concerned broadcasters looking for solutions not a means to an end

Rock on!

 

[ROCKTHEMIC]

Maybe "we" right here right now are the Drake-Chenault" collective of our time!

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Error Correction

You might want to check Arbitron's report entitled "What Happens When the Spots Come On". Their research shows a decided drop in listeners 12-24 as the stopset rolls on. But, then again, who cares about the next generation of listeners. Radio has all but abandoned them anyway.

That report is quite old, and based on the test markets before the PPM became currency.

Nobody programs to 12-17 because there is no revenue in it.

Anything longer than 8 seconds causes fatigue? Imagine how much "fatigue" 4 minutes of the wrong song causes. Perhaps a little "fatigue" would elicit more meaniful results. If ten seconds is enough to lower a songs perception, perhaps the score isn't really meaningful in the first place.

Don't be ingenuous. In a music test, the objective is to score the appeal of songs. If the hooks are over 8 seconds long, the participants score the song in the first 4 or 5 seconds and get bored waiting for the next song. Just 2" too much also adds 20 minutes to the length of a 600 song test... and more reason for fatigue.

I know a lot of people who aren't willing to give up an evening of their time - even for $100.00 - because they have so little time with their families. Or, they work second shift. Or, they work two jobs. Or, they're home with the kids while their spouse works evenings. Over-reliance on music testing is part of the problem, not the solution.

And we have no reason to believe that busier people have any different reactions to the music, as a group, than the ones who go to tests. And we know those that would not participate in "our" research are not likely to be Arbitron PPM panelists for 2 years.

To most people, and incentive of around $100 is quite attractive.

Well, if the PDs had the time to critique and train talent, that wouldn't be happening, would it? I hear far more DJs with nothing interesting to say than I hear "motor mouth DJs". And, when I say "nothing interesting to say", I mean "reading the liner and/or positioning statement over the 8 second intro". Pre-produced promos between songs get more airtime than the jocks. "Motor mouth DJs". That's funny, David. I can't remember that last time I heard one of those outside morning drive - which is the highest rated daypart of the week.

Actually, PM drive is, followed by mid-days and then mornings. All your data is veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery old.

All the PDs I work with aircheck (which in itself is training). But in most cases, part of training is showing the talent the expectations of the listener in each daypart. In some, it is talking 4 times an hour, very briefly.

I wasn't talking about VT, I was talking about over-reliance on pre-produced liners.

Liners are the station's own ads. They are intended to identify the source of the programming so listeners will know the palce to come back to. Since listening incidents average 40 minutes, it's important to get several of these in in each incident.

Most listeners don't even know what voice tracking is, but they sure know that they're not hearing the weather, or that it doesn't reflect what's going on outside.

Most of the time, the listeners don't care. Only in unusual conditions is weather important outside of mornings. And in some markets, the weather is so predictable that stations never give it unless there is a hurricane, for example.

They sure know that the guy on the air isn't talking about anything that's going on right now, and they know that nobody answers when they call the station.

The telephone is not a ratings device. And very, very few people ever call a station. I had a station a number of years back where, unless there was a prize being offered, we never got calls. After a while, we realized that was because we were playing the right songs at the right intervals and nobody needed to call.

It's nice of you to admit that personality actually adds to the percieved value in at least some formats. If radio doesn't concentrate more on active listening formats, it's never going to compete with other interactive media that allow listeners to control passive listening.

It depends on listener taste and expectation. In LA, we have two stations that are in the top 5 in the market... one is personality driven 24/7 and the other is a music intensive AC. The listeners of each find the other unappealing.

One size does not fit all.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Re: Error Correction

It's amazing how you conveniently ignore important statistics when they're not in your favor. Of course nobody (but Disney) programs 12-17, but they sure take it when it suits them. They certainly like the 18-24s when they impact 18-34 or 18-49 numbers.

The report that's "quite old" is from 2006 - not exactly the last century. Since the majority of markets aren't using PPM, and since PPM has problems of its own gaining acceptance, statistics generated based on that technology aren't exactly "coin of the realm".

How much does fatigue impact songs that are played later in the music test? Like it or not, 600 songs is too many for a single session. The whole process is flawed, outdated, and inaccurate. I know that you'll take exception to that, but TSL and AQH ratings have declined steadily as music testing has become the primary tool of programmers. You can blame that on "other activities", but I don't know of anybody who programs 300 songs on their iPod. They take considerable time and effort to upload a much greater variety of music - even within a single genre. Maybe, just maybe, it IS a programming problem, and "research" hasn't correctly identified the real problem. The other problem is that "solutions" from on genre, or for one audience, are being used for other genres and audiences. "One size does not fit all" applies in a LOT of situations.

You apparently live in an area where weather "isn't important". You might want to remember the Northern half of the nation. You might also want to remind your corporate buddies that "one size does not fit all" when they issue edicts on programming, job cuts, benefit reductions, and increasing work loads on those who are left.

You may now carry on reducing anything that you disagree with to a battle of "semantics". You can't change the results, and they're not pretty. Continue with "business as usual", and you're likely to be out of business before its over.

 

[adma]

I did a "guest lecturer" shot at the local university the other week and gave the kids a quiz to kick off the conversation. In one column were the numbers

96%
93%
57%
53%

... and in the second column were the names of four media:

internet
newspaper
television
radio

... and the task was to match each media with the percentage of weekly American users, per latest estimates.

The answers? Television @ 96%, radio @ 93%, newspaper @ 57%, and internet @53%. Most students had the percentages for radio and internet directly interchanged, though a few had radio at the bottom. None had radio positioned correctly.

Chances are that most broadcasters would fail this same little quiz. Like most people, we fail to factor in the cost of internet "receivers" and "service," and it doesn't occur to us that the national median HOUSEHOLD income of around $40,000 net--about 33-hundred bucks a month--means that after paying a grand or two for rent, a grand for family health insurance, another grand for food/utilities/clothing & other "necessities"--a big chunk of humanity can't drop a grand or two on a computer or pay Verizon $24 a month for online service.

But they can listen to the radio for free. And they do.

Though here's an observation I'm surprised nobody's made: your quiz took place at the local university.

And it's pretty safe to say that if said "big chunk of humanity" can't afford a computer or online service, they probably can't afford university, either.

So we're talking about (a) a yawning cultural gap between the haves and the have-nots, and (b) an unspoken perception that radio's natural core consists of society's terminally unenlightened pathetic underclass garbage who are totally alien to a university student's everyday experience.

Can radio survive when perceived as a "have-not" medium, on a level with lottery and gaming?

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Error Correction

It's amazing how you conveniently ignore important statistics when they're not in your favor. Of course nobody (but Disney) programs 12-17, but they sure take it when it suits them. They certainly like the 18-24s when they impact 18-34 or 18-49 numbers.

There is no interest in 12-17 as there is no money there. 18-24 behaves very differently, but since you have no access to that demo, your misconceptions are understandable.

The report that's "quite old" is from 2006 - not exactly the last century.

It was based on pre-currency test data. No market was out of testing until Houston started in 2007. The test data was based on fewer... much fewer... meters, incomplete demo cells and no accreditation. In other words, garbage. sSince I have been looking at test data since 2003, I am familiar with how it looks... and any conclusions based on it are likely wrong.

Since the majority of markets aren't using PPM, and since PPM has problems of its own gaining acceptance, statistics generated based on that technology aren't exactly "coin of the realm".

PPM is in the top 10 markets where a third of radio revenue comes from... and by early next year, will be in the top 15. I prefer to no use what has long been considered an outdated methodology for conclusions about today and the future.

How much does fatigue impact songs that are played later in the music test? Like it or not, 600 songs is too many for a single session.

Several sessions are done, and the order reversed or scrambled to prevent position bias. Results from each session, separately tabulated, are very very close one to another and differ only due to not having sample balance for each session, which is nearly impssible.

The whole process is flawed, outdated, and inaccurate. I know that you'll take exception to that, but TSL and AQH ratings have declined steadily as music testing has become the primary tool of programmers.

Music testing began in the 70's as the 45 or single went away... and stations needed to know what songs, not what albums were popular. Music tests have been a programming tool for over 30 years. With PPM, we see when a test is implemented that ratings, especially TSL, goes up.

You can blame that on "other activities", but I don't know of anybody who programs 300 songs on their iPod. They take considerable time and effort to upload a much greater variety of music - even within a single genre. Maybe, just maybe, it IS a programming problem, and "research" hasn't correctly identified the real problem. The other problem is that "solutions" from on genre, or for one audience, are being used for other genres and audiences. "One size does not fit all" applies in a LOT of situations.

Average number of songs on an iPod is around 300. And each radio format has a different core number... remember Top 40 never had repetition complaints and they played 40 songs or less. Today, CHR may play 100 songs, country around 700, adult hits over 1000. It all depends on the format and the station and the competition each has.

You apparently live in an area where weather "isn't important". You might want to remember the Northern half of the nation.

I work in 17 markets, ranging from the tropics to NYC and Chicago. Each market had different requirements, but on most days of the year, weather outside mornings is of little interest. As mentioned, there are markets where outside of hurricanes or monsoons, there is zero interest all year long.

You might also want to remind your corporate buddies that "one size does not fit all" when they issue edicts on programming, job cuts, benefit reductions, and increasing work loads on those who are left.

All the job and benefits cuts are sad, but the markets are down 40% or more, retail and automotive sectors are near bankruptcy, and ad activity is off 40% as of last month. You going to loan the money to make payroll when expenses exceed income?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

So we're talking about (a) a yawning cultural gap between the haves and the have-nots, and (b) an unspoken perception that radio's natural core consists of society's terminally unenlightened pathetic underclass garbage who are totally alien to a university student's everyday experience.

Can radio survive when perceived as a "have-not" medium, on a level with lottery and gaming?

I don't think radio has ever made a living catering to the elites of our society.

Radio has made a living selling beer, automobiles, groceries, jewelry. The Sam Walton family has built a world class fortune selling to what you, with derogatory language, call the "have-not" lottery and gaming crowd.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Re: Error Correction

There is no interest in 12-17 as there is no money there. 18-24 behaves very differently, but since you have no access to that demo, your misconceptions are understandable.

Uh, you might try LOOKING at the report before you dismiss it. According to the Arbitron report, specifically showing 18-24 response, audience declines in nearly a straight line to 94.9% after the first minute, 88.8% after the second minute, 85.2% after the third minute, to a low of 81.3% after the fifth minute.

The report that's "quite old" is from 2006 - not exactly the last century.

It was based on pre-currency test data. No market was out of testing until Houston started in 2007. The test data was based on fewer... much fewer... meters, incomplete demo cells and no accreditation. In other words, garbage. sSince I have been looking at test data since 2003, I am familiar with how it looks... and any conclusions based on it are likely wrong.

EVERYONE TAKE NOTE. Any data prior to 2007 is garbage, unless personally approved by David "Eduardo". Don't trust what Arbitron publishes. They publish flawed research. Especially if it conflicts with his pre-concieved notions.

Since the majority of markets aren't using PPM, and since PPM has problems of its own gaining acceptance, statistics generated based on that technology aren't exactly "coin of the realm".

PPM is in the top 10 markets where a third of radio revenue comes from... and by early next year, will be in the top 15. I prefer to no use what has long been considered an outdated methodology for conclusions about today and the future.

See everyone, more proof that you're basing your programming on flawed data - per D. "Eduardo". I guess that you might as well go with your gut, and sell based on results instead of numbers, because the methodology is outdated and the conclusions are wrong.

Rock, looks like David is giving you the green light.

Average number of songs on an iPod is around 300.

I'd LOVE to see the "research" that turns up THAT result. David, you've got to stop making things up to suit your POV.

You apparently live in an area where weather "isn't important". You might want to remember the Northern half of the nation.

I work in 17 markets, ranging from the tropics to NYC and Chicago. Each market had different requirements, but on most days of the year, weather outside mornings is of little interest. As mentioned, there are markets where outside of hurricanes or monsoons, there is zero interest all year long.

So, apparently "one size DOES fit all" in your world. Tell the people in Chicago that "weather outside of mornings is of little interest". Tell that to listeners across the northern tier of states - especially in the winter. Tell that to listeners in Tornado Alley during the summer. Tell it to farmers, sailors, golfers, and people who DON'T work in a nice comfy corner office.

Wait, I've got it! No wonder you didn't do well on the air. Too many people apparently didn't get your "dry humor", because statements like the above one are FUNNY to those of us in more than half the nation.

You might also want to remind your corporate buddies that "one size does not fit all" when they issue edicts on programming, job cuts, benefit reductions, and increasing work loads on those who are left.

All the job and benefits cuts are sad, but the markets are down 40% or more, retail and automotive sectors are near bankruptcy, and ad activity is off 40% as of last month. You going to loan the money to make payroll when expenses exceed income?

The expenses WOULDN'T exceed income if some guys pulling down 7-figures or more hadn't overleveraged the company in the first place. You'd think that they might have heard of something called "The Business Cycle". Oh, but I forgot. This is the "new" economy - just like dot-coms, Enron, and others before them.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Error Correction

Uh, you might try LOOKING at the report before you dismiss it. According to the Arbitron report, specifically showing 18-24 response, audience declines in nearly a straight line to 94.9% after the first minute, 88.8% after the second minute, 85.2% after the third minute, to a low of 81.3% after the fifth minute.

The report was done before any PPM market was out of test status and comparing the data with recordings of a few stations.

It does not cover multiple markets, does not have adequate ethnic samples, and the 18 to 24 was based on somehting like 6 meters.

EVERYONE TAKE NOTE. Any data prior to 2007 is garbage, unless personally approved by David "Eduardo". Don't trust what Arbitron publishes. They publish flawed research. Especially if it conflicts with his pre-concieved notions.

There was no PPM data published prior to that date, except test data for the local stations involved in one single market.... in 2006 there was only one market running, Houston... as a 2-year test, ending in June of 2007. TEST. The data was not released or "published", and there was a prohibition on using it for anything except analysis. In fact, until early 07, two major groups, Cox and Radio One, were not even encoding in Houston, so there was no way of projecting into the universe for share, cume share and rating, etc..

See everyone, more proof that you're basing your programming on flawed data - per D. "Eduardo". I guess that you might as well go with your gut, and sell based on results instead of numbers, because the methodology is outdated and the conclusions are wrong.

Funny, but the reason advertisers and agencies pushed for the PPM is that they did not want to use the diary based data any more, because it was slow in coming out and perceived as being collected by an antiquated methodology.

I'd LOVE to see the "research" that turns up THAT result. David, you've got to stop making things up to suit your POV.

It´s been all over the web over the last year or two. in fact, there are several surveys that have been done.

[/quote]So, apparently "one size DOES fit all" in your world. Tell the people in Chicago that "weather outside of mornings is of little interest". Tell that to listeners across the northern tier of states - especially in the winter. Tell that to listeners in Tornado Alley during the summer. Tell it to farmers, sailors, golfers, and people who DON'T work in a nice comfy corner office. [/quote]

I was quite clear in specifiying that the interest outside of mornings and during severe weather was very limited. You are beating a dead horse.

The expenses WOULDN'T exceed income if some guys pulling down 7-figures or more hadn't overleveraged the company in the first place. You'd think that they might have heard of something called "The Business Cycle". Oh, but I forgot. This is the "new" economy - just like dot-coms, Enron, and others before them.

You are obsessed with the idea that all radio executives make 7 figure salaries. Without bonuses this year, only a handful, if that, do. There is lots more talent making that kind of money than there is management.

 

[adma]

So we're talking about (a) a yawning cultural gap between the haves and the have-nots, and (b) an unspoken perception that radio's natural core consists of society's terminally unenlightened pathetic underclass garbage who are totally alien to a university student's everyday experience.

Can radio survive when perceived as a "have-not" medium, on a level with lottery and gaming?

I don't think radio has ever made a living catering to the elites of our society.

Radio has made a living selling beer, automobiles, groceries, jewelry. The Sam Walton family has built a world class fortune selling to what you, with derogatory language, call the "have-not" lottery and gaming crowd.

Well, even the so-called elites of our society buy beer, automobiles, groceries, jewelry (and sometimes at Wal-Mart, yet). Especially if you're implicitly casting the "elite" net so wide as to encompass all of the university demographic that redneckriviera was addressing.

But consider that if you were to ask a similar college crowd in the 70s or even the MTV'd 80s, their answer might have been different. Remember: from Top 40 days onward, the mythical reach and center of gravity for "rock radio" centered upon an implied middle class demo--which could even spill upward, as well as downward. Having grown up with it, college kids dug it, too. There wasn't such a "yawning gap" then.

What this says more about is the technologically/culturally-driven breakdown of the universal reach of mass media (or even mass society) as we knew it--or at least certain divisions of it. So maybe commercial radio always had an "underclass" element; but today, it's perceived as exclusively underclass. Today's equivalent of the "middle" (including the college-going middle, as per redneckriviera's survey) of yesteryear has opted out. (And as redneckriviera's survey indicates, it's a phenomenon quite specific to radio vs internet--from what I can tell, television remained "perceived" in the 90%+ percentile. Hey, why not. Tina Fey's Palin mimics made for terrific between-class discussion fodder.)