Do You Really Care About Radio?

[oldies76]

Listeners are those who approve of what you're doing, stay tuned, like what you've been doing, and eagerly await more.
Listeners have faith in what you've been doing. Listeners LIKE someone at the station to drege up NEW/OLD material to keep a playlist fresh and interesting.

What else can we say Tom Wells, no one cares anymore.....hundreds of thousands of listeners in a market. What "law" makes them ALL agree that they ALL must listen to the same songs, as everyone else? Everyone has their favorite songs.... And it's not always within the same 400 songs we hear every darn day of the week!! Give me a friggin' break! If a listener has 10 songs that they like, that are never heard on classic hit radio, then the opposite point of view has been deemed null. How many people have I asked about radio and whether their favorites are ever played? The vast majority of them said no and are dissatisfied with what they hear today. The radio execs could care less what we listen to.

 

[TheBigA]

Before scientific audience demo measurement and huge ad agencies and the like advertisers paid for air time and in some cases actually owned it and the programs aired on it.

Scientific audience measurement goes back to the 1920s. The minute you had advertising on the radio, you had the need to measure who it reached.

Perhaps if radio hadn't let agencies dictate programming to specific audiences and continued to let them buy just time we'd still have full service stations.

Huh? You don't think allowing advertisers create and produce programming allowed them to dictate programming? The radio companies in the 40s really had no say in the content of programming other than standards & practices. That practice of agency-produced programming for the most part ended with the invention of TV. But they weren't just buying time. They were dictating the programming on stations.

Once upon a time when radio was ad-supported it could deliver diverse content to a wide audience. Today it is still ad-supported but it is also ad-controlled to the extent it serves only niche audiences. Perhaps if radio sold time, as opposed to demos, it would once again become the predominate entertainment medium. Or, perhaps when eventually the morning drive time disappears....so does radio.

Obviously the diversity of media available today has changed the way advertisers reach customers. But the real thing that changed radio from what you call full service to niche audiences was the explosion of FM in the 70s followed by the over-licensing of the spectrum in the 1980s. Those two things made the need for radio stations serving broad audiences obsolete. In the 60s, a station had to be all things to all people. Just 20 years later, more stations in a market allowed format specialization. So it wasn't the advertisers who caused this problem, but the government.

 

[TheBigA]

What "law" makes them ALL agree that they ALL must listen to the same songs, as everyone else?

The law of supply and demand. Once again, as I've said throughout this thread, you have many choices. You can use personalized music services that will do exactly what you want. But they take time and usually cost money.

The vast majority of them said no and are dissatisfied with what they hear today. The radio execs could care less what we listen to.

If in fact "the vast majority of them said no," it would show up in the ratings. It hasn't. That's why execs don't care what a small minority of people listen to.

 

[michael hagerty]

Perhaps if radio hadn't let agencies dictate programming to specific audiences and continued to let them buy just time we'd still have full service stations.

But not all stations were full-service stations back in the day...and the ones that weren't, the Top 40s and R&Bs and Countrys and Jazz and Classical and Beautiful Music, weren't created by advertisers. They were created by independent broadcasters who were trying to find a niche since four other stations in their market already had the ABC, CBS, Mutual and NBC network affiliations sewn up.

And son of a gun, they got audiences. The advertisers learned that you couldn't reach everyone by sponsoring half an hour of Jack Benny. You also had to buy a minute every hour or two of Jumpin' George Oxford.

Over time, it became clear. Different businesses had different people they wanted to reach. Sure, Frank Dill on KNBR was great for banks, beers and airlines, but Leopold's music shop needed the people who listened to Tom Donahue on KSAN-FM. Genzler-Lee Diamonds wanted young people just getting engaged...best to buy a spot every couple of hours on KFRC. Stephen Matthew-David wanted those same people to come to his store at the top of the hill in Daly City to buy stereos. And, until Oil Crisis II hit, the Bay Area Cadilac Dealers found a combination of KKHI and KGO was just the ticket.

There are really only two things that have changed here. Advertisers are hyper-focused on a single demographic of 25-54, believing that those who are younger don't have the money and those who are older can't be swayed from brand loyalties by advertising (I think they're wrong), and we now have audience measurement that records actual listening rather than recall.

Regardless, full service was doomed to shrink and eventually die, as do all broad forms of entertainment as audiences fragment (Ed Sullivan>Andy Williams>Carol Burnett>Sonny & Cher>Saturday Night Live is a good illustration of how true variety became music and comedy, which became comedy and music...in that order...which incorporated "rock and roll"...and then became a 90 minute comedy show with 2 songs).

Advertisers chase audience (perhaps too narrow an audience). Accurate measurement of what that audience does isn't "ruining" media...it's just showing what's really going on.

 

[landtuna]

There are really only two things that have changed here. Advertisers are hyper-focused on a single demographic of 25-54, believing that those who are younger don't have the money and those who are older can't be swayed from brand loyalties by advertising (I think they're wrong), and we now have audience measurement that records actual listening rather than recall.

I KNOW they are wrong. Last year I bought a new brand of car that I would never have considered had it not been advertised. Other than some brands of food I don't have brand loyalties. For one thing, products change over time and become something they weren't the last time you bought it. For another, improved products are always coming off the manufacturing lines. Although the Toyota I had for the past 11 years was the best car I ever owned I chose to buy another brand as Toyota has slipped in its quality. That happens with most products.

But PPM has made a big difference beside that of just measuring who is listening to whom. You said it earlier yourself - you lose 3 PPM listeners out of 10 in any given moment you take a 30% hit. Those 3 listeners might be back after your 8-minute commercial block ends so it evens out over time. TV, which is also ad-supported, measures complete programs, not time segments (although it does measure drop-off after program starts). It seems radio needs something less concise than minute-by-minute measurements (citing the "oh wow!" discussion here and the occasional "stiff"). It also seems to me that advertisers would be more interested in how their sales improve with specific ad campaigns versus just looking for the largest number of ears. They have to realize that commercials are generally detested by virtually all listeners and the pre-sets get a workout when the block begins.

What I remember about pop music radio in the 50's was their programs. They had a program every weekday evening that played the current top 10. They had another that was new music (and invited audience votes by phone). They had remotes from skating rinks, high schools, malt shops, athletic events. I called up one night with a request and was invited down to tour the station. What has taken its place now? Squat. No wonder it is dead. When I was in junior and senior high school I knew every DJ, even the overnight guy, by name and I had met virtually all of them in person at some point.They had audience participation schemes like Chris Borden's "Hot Times In Voluntary Fire Dept." which was a social type organization built around his antique fire engine. Every weekend someone was hosting a remote somewhere and it became a meeting place for the audience. There are people on TV like that now but not on the radio. Radio has become nothing more than a music box and the lack of enthusiasm by today's young people is understandable.

My favorite station changes its playlist and fires all the DJ's that made it popular and wonders why no one listens. Really?

Regardless, full service was doomed to shrink and eventually die, as do all broad forms of entertainment as audiences fragment (Ed Sullivan>Andy Williams>Carol Burnett>Sonny & Cher>Saturday Night Live is a good illustration of how true variety became music and comedy, which became comedy and music...in that order...which incorporated "rock and roll"...and then became a 90 minute comedy show with 2 songs).

The variety shows of old were the epitome of entertainment for most of us who didn't have access to real live stage shows. And they had genuine entertainers as hosts and not some fresh-faced Seacrest-like dummy who knows how to smile and read a teleprompter. Now days youngsters turn to YouTube to see what was on TV not too long ago (without the professionalism of course).

BTW, I would not include SNL in your list. It never has been mainstream variety. It began as a college-age comedy theater and has degenerated into a poor high school-like quickie improv with really questionable talent.

Advertisers chase audience (perhaps too narrow an audience). Accurate measurement of what that audience does isn't "ruining" media...it's just showing what's really going on.

Except that nowhere can an advertiser tell if his message is reaching a ready buyer except by post measurement. PPM can tell whether the radio is on what station but it cannot tell if someone is actually listening or is an acceptable potential customer.

 

[TheBigA]

I called up one night with a request and was invited down to tour the station. What has taken its place now? Squat. No wonder it is dead. When I was in junior and senior high school I knew every DJ, even the overnight guy, by name and I had met virtually all of them in person at some point.

I think being outside the demo has limited your experience, because most CHR, urban, and country radio stations have specialty shows, call-ins, and outreach programs designed to involve their listeners. They also use social media in addition to calls. The difference is that the listeners they target are the age you were in the 1950s and 60s. Obviously, those listeners have tons of other options for music and socialization than you did 50 years ago, so just because they do the same thing now, it doesn't necessarily have the same effect. The world has changed since you were a kid, and there's really nothing anyone can do to bring back the past. Your grandparents had the same experience when they were your age. If you could speak with them now, they'd tell you.

 

[davideduardo]

But PPM has made a big difference beside that of just measuring who is listening to whom. You said it earlier yourself - you lose 3 PPM listeners out of 10 in any given moment you take a 30% hit. Those 3 listeners might be back after your 8-minute commercial block ends so it evens out over time. TV, which is also ad-supported, measures complete programs, not time segments (although it does measure drop-off after program starts). It seems radio needs something less concise than minute-by-minute measurements (citing the "oh wow!" discussion here and the occasional "stiff").

Radio is not a program based medium. You can pretty much tune in an out at random and miss neither the beginning nor the end.

Still, the basis for radio measurement is not the "minute" but the quarter-hour. If the PPM detects you listening in any five of the 15 minutes in each quarter hour, you are credited with that particular quarter hour. In the diary, five minutes, sequentially, gets you credit.

Advertisers have long used circulation for print, ears for radio, sets for TV, to determine the potential audience for a commercial. They know that most people don't pay attention. But the idea is to make impressions. To measure "listening" as opposed to "hearing" would involve a degree of intrusion into a person's life that would be so extreme as to bias the findings via "methodology bias."

Radio is a medium. To create sales requires not just a medium, but a message that contains something appealing to a consumer and must satisfy concerns like location, pricing, availability, sizes, models, etc.

If I hate pickup trucks, no amount of F-150 ads will make me go see one. But if I have a pickup, and the old one is getting pretty grungy, I will pay attention when an add offers one at a place I'm near, on the right terms, in the model and color I want...

It's no different than the guy yelling "Hot Dogs" in the stands at the ball game. If I am not hungry, I don't even hear him. But if I am, oh boy, am I going to break my diet. And put lots of mustard and relish on mine, too.

 

[landtuna]

I think being outside the demo has limited your experience, because most CHR, urban, and country radio stations have specialty shows, call-ins, and outreach programs designed to involve their listeners. They also use social media in addition to calls. The difference is that the listeners they target are the age you were in the 1950s and 60s. Obviously, those listeners have tons of other options for music and socialization than you did 50 years ago, so just because they do the same thing now, it doesn't necessarily have the same effect. The world has changed since you were a kid, and there's really nothing anyone can do to bring back the past. Your grandparents had the same experience when they were your age. If you could speak with them now, they'd tell you.

It's true that I am a long way from my teen years but observing the stations that cater to older teens and young adults now the only thing I notice is their support of concerts and for the rappers, gunfights in nightclubs. That's it. I'd be astounded if 1 in 100 of this demo has ever met one of the DJ's (other than seeing them at the mic in the club) or toured the station. The best they get is some lame coupon to a concert or perhaps a $100 giveaway (gee, THAT's a new concept!).

I am not advocating the past because frankly I don't think it would work with people who have the attention span of a gnat. Rather, I am describing one reason radio is not the entertainment choice of teens and young adults.

While it is not exactly the same it does seem to work on older adults. We have a top-rated morning show here which is very popular and one reason is the hosts appearances at events all over town. Her radio show also makes daily appearances on a local TV morning show - usually 3 two-minute segments. She has a personal following and people feel they know and like her. Just like the old days. Imagine that!

 

[michael hagerty]

Landtuna: TV measures in 15-minute increments, as well. They're then stitched together to create the snapshot of 30 or 60 minute shows. From experience, I can tell you that news directors and producers look at those quarter-hours and constantly second-guess why they went down at 10:15 while the competition went up. It's the newscast equivalent of "we played a stiff and the other guys were playing the best record ever".

 

[michael hagerty]

Landtuna: While I understand your low opinion of SNL, it absolutely belongs in that analogy. It may never have been mainstream variety, but it is what replaced mainstream variety.

It was the first variety show by and for the Baby Boom generation and it is the only surviving remnant of the variety show genre on English-language American television. As such, it illustrates how that generation, in less than 10 years' time, remade the format to its own tastes, working within the old system as writers for Andy Williams, Carol Burnett, The Smothers Brothers and Sonny & Cher before getting the keys to a studio at 30 Rock.

Raised on Sullivan, who might give you the Beatles, Rod McKuen, Kate Smith, The Mormon Tabernacle Choir and Henny Youngman (plus Topo Gigio) all in the same hour, the Boomers distilled their version into pure sketch comedy with two songs from the same artist.

Say what you will, but it's been a success. Sullivan was on TV for 23 years. SNL has been on for 37 with the same format.

 

[TheBigA]

I am not advocating the past because frankly I don't think it would work with people who have the attention span of a gnat. Rather, I am describing one reason radio is not the entertainment choice of teens and young adults.

Back in the 50s and 60s, doing radio was very mysterious, and involved technology. Most DJs had government licenses. By the late 70s, anyone could buy a couple of turntables and a mixer and call themselves a DJ. By the late 90s, computer technology made audio mixing and production cheap and easy. The internet gave anyone access to a world audience. All of those technological changes are the reasons why teens and young adults know share your sense of wonder about radio. It's simply not the mystery it once was. Plus there are just too many DJs. It used to be that a town had a couple of radio stations. Now even a small city has ten radio stations. With the number of DJs, they don't have the access they once had to the top stars. So meeting a DJ isn't as hard or as prestigious as it once was.

 

[landtuna]

Say what you will, but it's been a success. Sullivan was on TV for 23 years. SNL has been on for 37 with the same format.

I was never a fan of Sullivan but loved other variety shows including Gleason's American Scene Magazine, Smothers Bros., Red Skelton, George Gobel and Dean Martin etc. They were all prime-time shows with top-of-the-marquee talent. SNL OTOH is a late night replacement for what used to be the weekly horror show and has had mostly B-list talent and below most of its run. Its comedy comes right out of a high school drama class somewhere. Given its miniscule production costs I suspect is a good reason why it is still on the air but I know no one, including myself, who watches it. Perhaps, like daytime soap operas, it is popular only in college dorm rooms.

 

[TheBigA]

Given its miniscule production costs I suspect is a good reason why it is still on the air but I know no one, including myself, who watches it. Perhaps, like daytime soap operas, it is popular only in college dorm rooms.

Once again, you're not their target demo. College dorm rooms are. That's the important lesson from SNL: You must evolve and change, keep reaching for newer and younger audiences, and they do that by changing their actors, hosts, and musical guests. If you see a promo, and you don't recognize the musical act, it's probably because you don't listen to CHR radio. All credit to Lorne Michaels, who has managed to keep the show young while he himself has aged.

 

[landtuna]

With the number of DJs, they don't have the access they once had to the top stars.

Notice I didn't say "meeting stars" was important. About the only place we ever got the chance to meet any musical stars was backstage at a concert and then only if you won a contest. Of course the definition of "star" has now changed too. Most of them are video anomalies with bad behavior and a paucity of musical talent, if any at all.

But meeting stars was less important than the relationship with your favorite DJ(s). They were informative, amusing, knowledgeable and professional. At least in my market they were not 20-something drug-addled misfits that mimicked their musical weirdos. Most were show-biz professionals and, even though our parents blanched at the thought, they were good role models.

Even if the relationship was only one-way, which is what is was for most of us, it is still fondly remembered some 40-50 years after most went on to other ventures. Those DJ's are very rare today and that is one reason radio is second-class entertainment.

 

[landtuna]

Once again, you're not their target demo. College dorm rooms are. That's the important lesson from SNL: You must evolve and change, keep reaching for newer and younger audiences, and they do that by changing their actors, hosts, and musical guests. If you see a promo, and you don't recognize the musical act, it's probably because you don't listen to CHR radio. All credit to Lorne Michaels, who has managed to keep the show young while he himself has aged.

I fully realize I am not now in the target demo but I once was and that is the point I am trying to make. The show hasn't changed all that much. It was second-rate entertainment back then and it remains so today. I, of course, do not sit in my dorm room toking on my bong and laughing hysterically at the high school humor.

 

[TheBigA]

But meeting stars was less important than the relationship with your favorite DJ(s). They were informative, amusing, knowledgeable and professional. At least in my market they were not 20-something drug-addled misfits that mimicked their musical weirdos. Most were show-biz professionals and, even though our parents blanched at the thought, they were good role models.

Now those people can get jobs in TV or movies. There's a huge comedy club circuit where creative and funny people can find work. That didn't exist 50 years ago. And if you're traveling around the country playing Zanies or the other clubs, you can't do local radio.

I think the whole "relationship with the DJ" thing was imaginary. Today, people can have real relationships with real people their own age through social media. If they're having relationships with radio people, it usually ends up in the news. And that kind of thing happened in the old days too. "Play Misty For Me" wasn't just a movie. As for role models, most kids I talk to say their role models are their parents. Credit today's parents for spending more time with their kids than in previous generations.

 

[landtuna]

Now those people can get jobs in TV or movies.

Is that the reason we have so many lame TV shows and movies today with the likes of Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler and other 2nd rate comedians? I see nothing of contrast between modern TV comedians and the DJ's of the 50's and 60's. Radio humor was more low-key and not visual so wacky-wacky wasn't the norm. That all disappeared with the morning "zoo's" which the pimple-faced crowd adopted.

There's a huge comedy club circuit where creative and funny people can find work. That didn't exist 50 years ago.

I remember a large and dynamic comedy club circuit in S.F. in 1960 and I'm pretty sure the same existed in most other major cities as well. All the way from formal clubs to impromptu. And don't forget all the venues in places like Reno and Las Vegas.

I think the whole "relationship with the DJ" thing was imaginary.

I can tell you from first hand experience it wasn't. I'm pretty sure most people who grew up with me would tell you something similar. We flipped on the old AM radio when we got up and got ready for school. We flipped it on again when we got home and again after dinner when we sat down to do homework. I knew more about those guys than I did about my own parents - because they talked about it.

Today, people can have real relationships with real people their own age through social media.

I think we have discussions with people on social media but not a true relationship. You and I have traded a significant amount of information about me yet you really know very little about me and I know even less about you. Trading barbs on social media isn't the same as spending 2-3 hours with one other person five days per week.

If they're having relationships with radio people, it usually ends up in the news. And that kind of thing happened in the old days too.

Yes, I know about those but that's not what I am taking about and I think you know that.

As for role models, most kids I talk to say their role models are their parents. Credit today's parents for spending more time with their kids than in previous generations.

The point I was trying to make was that the DJ's of my era were generally much better at being role models in their careers than those of today. Because of several of them I have had a lifelong interest in radio.

As a parent I would hope my kids would say I was a role model for them as well - lord knows I tried. My parents did not spend anywhere near the time I spent with mine but it was a different time and place.

 

[michael hagerty]

I was never a fan of Sullivan but loved other variety shows including Gleason's American Scene Magazine, Smothers Bros., Red Skelton, George Gobel and Dean Martin etc. They were all prime-time shows with top-of-the-marquee talent. SNL OTOH is a late night replacement for what used to be the weekly horror show and has had mostly B-list talent and below most of its run.

I'd agree on regular cast members (that was the point of the Not Ready For Prime Time Players...to be the polar opposite of the 1975 concept of "TV stars"), but the list of guest hosts and musical acts over the past 37 years is remarkable: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Saturday_Night_Live_guests

Here's my point, though: Would anyone watch the type of "real" variety show you're talking about today? What A-list talent could possibly host it weekly, what would the guest pool look like and what could they do on the show?

My belief is those days are gone forever...that not many of my generation (I'm 56) or younger look back all that fondly on pre-SNL variety except possibly for Carol Burnett and The Smothers Brothers (which tilted the scales toward comedy in Carol's case and the counterculture in the Smothers').

The rest of it was sitting through an hour of Dean pretending to be drunk, Sammy trying too hard and laughing too loud, Andy earnestly trying to find a non-threatening level of hip that wouldn't offend middle America, the June Taylor Dancers, Borscht Belt Comics and supposedly A-list actors reading their lines in a skit from cue cards in order to see Simon and Garfunkel.

 

[landtuna]

Here's my point, though: Would anyone watch the type of "real" variety show you're talking about today? What A-list talent could possibly host it weekly, what would the guest pool look like and what could they do on the show?

I'll be honest (and I'm 11 years older than you) - I would watch. Variety shows are one genre I really miss. Yes some were hokey and yes they had cue cards and yes, John Wayne looked way out of place when he guested but they were still leagues above what passes for entertainment today (Idol, X, Voice and all those 'reality' shows). Matter of fact, instead of paying big bucks for cable I dumped it several years ago and now spend money on DVD's from the old days. I've recently been watching the Smothers Bros shows. I will admit they would not make a lot of sense to youngsters today because so much revolved around the Vietnam War and the social unrest of the day. Dean Martin et. al. would seem like an Old Fogey and Andy Williams would bore kids to death. You would have to take their phones away to get them to pay attention. But all I have to do to create chaos in my house is put in the Carol Burnett Show and my wife and son dissolve into laughter and tears. Nothing like that exists today.

 

[michael hagerty]

Here's my point, though: Would anyone watch the type of "real" variety show you're talking about today? What A-list talent could possibly host it weekly, what would the guest pool look like and what could they do on the show?

I'll be honest (and I'm 11 years older than you) - I would watch...Nothing like that exists today.

Which is probably a good point to remind ourselves that the variety TV show and its extinction (apart from SNL) was my analogy to your original comment about the absence of full-service radio.

The real question is: Would 25-54 year olds (think 40 as the center) listen? To guys like my dad, stations like KMPC and KSFO were the best of all possible worlds. In his 30-minute drive home, he'd get the news, some ball scores, the weather, the traffic, the stock market, couple of good jokes from Gary Owens and maybe three songs.

Of course, if he were alive today, my dad would be 95.

But tempus has fugited. People who want music want music, period. When they punch the button for KCBS, they expect news. There are no generalists on the air anymore, only specialists. And truth be told, the "big" stations weren't as big as we thought they were after '65 or so. KMPC rarely did better than 6th. By the middle 70s, if it wasn't baseball season, they were lucky to be in the Top 10.

I just think, Landtuna, that the big tent collapsed close to 40 years ago. Fortunately, few people were left inside at the time. And it wasn't advertisers to blame, it was audiences behaving naturally. The advertisers simply followed. And since the fragmentation occurred along demographic lines, it made efficient ad buying possible.