Do You Really Care About Radio?

[PirateJohnny]

Every time i see a reply to this thread I think, "Of course we care about radio, we're reading a discussion board dedicated to radio".

I think some of the recent posts are a little off track.

I grew up listening to the radio and wanting to be a part of the radio I heard. I finally got behind the mic before graduating from high school. Of course I care about radio. It ain't what it was, but whose fault is it, really? Personally, I blame consultants and focus groups. When I was young radio was at the top of the list for entertainment choices. At school we talked about what we heard the night before. That just doesn't happen today.

Some of my thoughts were going in a different direction so I started a new thread here:

http://radiodiscussions.com/smf/index.php?topic=221185.0

 

[TheBigA]

Personally, I blame consultants and focus groups.

That's like blaming the weatherman when it rains.

 

[Jay Walker]

I guess one of the big questions (for oldies stations) is: how many songs should a station have in it's library and how often should a song be heard at the same time of the day?

Successful "Classic Hits/Oldies" libraries should be managed the way you manage a CHR/AC/Current library to ensure minimal "burn out" and keep the library fresh.

Speaking in generics, you will have a "Power" category that is rotated frequently. The trick to freshness is bringing in and out tunes in that category to keep the "powers" fresh and cut back on the perceived notion of "I heard that song the same time the last three days in a row".

Library management is tricky, To ensure proper balance you try to keep the perceived changes to a minimum. That way the audience doesn't think you "changed formats" during a refresh period. You do not "blow out" your entire power category, you do it in small increments over a period of weeks. As few as 20 - 25 songs depending on the depth of the power category. This management mindset follows through the remaining categories of your library.

Contrary to popular belief, Classic Hits/Oldies libraries are not a load it and forget it item. They have to be constantly managed to provide the illusion of "fresh" even while playing product that ranges between 20 and 40 years of age. To keep the format fresh, stations will park former powers in a rest category for a while to "de-age" the product. The amount of time depends on the burn factor. With music tests/Call-out, this can be based on a data set that is a bit better than "gut" responses. Other options are downgrading a power to a lesser rotation in other library categories, moving slower rotation product up a notch to refresh as well. Then there's the seasonal aspect as well.

The bottom line success of a Classic Hits/Oldies library is the amount of attention paid to rotation management. It's not about Quantity, it's more about Quality. 350 "hits" will always beat 3500 "stiffs" in the long haul.

But the same 350 songs improperly managed can kill you over time just as easy as 3500 stiffs..

 

[DavidKaye]

I grew up listening to the radio and wanting to be a part of the radio I heard. I finally got behind the mic before graduating from high school. Of course I care about radio. It ain't what it was, but whose fault is it, really? Personally, I blame consultants and focus groups. When I was young radio was at the top of the list for entertainment choices.

You blame consultants? What are considered the golden years of Top 40 radio, generally from 1959 to 1973, were not gut-reaction formats at all. The two big guys here on the West Coast, Bill Drake and Chuck Blore (KFWB, KDWB, KEWB) didn't allow gut-reaction programming. In the case of the Blore stations, even back in 1959 the DJs had weekly meetings to decide together what stations to add to their playlists. So at no time was an individual DJ just playing what he thought was good. Also, music surveys played a lot into decisions for adds and drops, and those music surveys were based on sales at record stores.

In the case of Bill Drake, he would usually listen to smaller market stations such as KSTN in Stockton and hear what they were putting into rotation before he'd try a song on KHJ. Again, not a gut-reaction format.

At school we talked about what we heard the night before. That just doesn't happen today.

Are you sure that doesn't happen? Do you hang around schools and overhear conversations? Maybe the kids don't talk about what was on the radio the previous night but maybe they talk about the video they saw last night on YouTube. Same thing, different medium.

 

[michael hagerty]

I grew up listening to the radio and wanting to be a part of the radio I heard. I finally got behind the mic before graduating from high school. Of course I care about radio. It ain't what it was, but whose fault is it, really? Personally, I blame consultants and focus groups. When I was young radio was at the top of the list for entertainment choices. At school we talked about what we heard the night before. That just doesn't happen today.

And how many radio stations were there to choose from when you grew up? How many that appealed to your age group? And how many alternate entertainment choices did you have at your disposal?

When small towns went from three signals to thirty, when 12-34 year olds went from having one station they could stand to six or seven, when Walkmans, CD players, iPods and iPads came along, the same rules no longer applied.

Not all consultants are good at what they do, not all focus groups are well-managed or have the right music played to them in the first place, but the good ones have kept radio from becoming less relevant than it is.

 

[oldies76]

The bottom line success of a Classic Hits/Oldies library is the amount of attention paid to rotation management. It's not about Quantity, it's more about Quality. 350 "hits" will always beat 3500 "stiffs" in the long haul.

But the same 350 songs improperly managed can kill you over time just as easy as 3500 stiffs..

And many of those so-called "stiffs" will come about as an "oh wow" response, songs that have not been heard in many years. People welcome change.

 

[Jay Walker]

The bottom line success of a Classic Hits/Oldies library is the amount of attention paid to rotation management. It's not about Quantity, it's more about Quality. 350 "hits" will always beat 3500 "stiffs" in the long haul.

But the same 350 songs improperly managed can kill you over time just as easy as 3500 stiffs..

Again it's all about Library management.

And many of those so-called "stiffs" will come about as an "oh wow" response, songs that have not been heard in many years. People welcome change.

 

[davideduardo]

And many of those so-called "stiffs" will come about as an "oh wow" response, songs that have not been heard in many years. People welcome change.

A good classic hits station has already determined the playability of every eligible song.

Playing songs that are not broadly liked simply causes large groups of listeners to tune out or to spend less time with your station.

They don't say "oh, wow". They say "oh, s--t" and tune out.

 

[briancraig]

Although I have heard many classic hits stations including KRTH do "lost hits" weekends.

 

[Tom Wells]

And many of those so-called "stiffs" will come about as an "oh wow" response, songs that have not been heard in many years. People welcome change.

A good classic hits station has already determined the playability of every eligible song.

Playing songs that are not broadly liked simply causes large groups of listeners to tune out or to spend less time with your station.

They don't say "oh, wow". They say "oh, s--t" and tune out.

They aren't listeners. They are tune-out-ers.
Who needs 'em?

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.

Those who already know within 2-300 songs of what they want to hear should use their ipods and let radio be radio.

I'm most impressed when radio brings me a new (or old, or obscure) song I'm ony too happy to enjoy, collect, share,
or as David E. has described, "hoard". Why "having such music" within my (shared, radio) domain constiutes hoarding, I'm not sure.

Matters not whether I am delerious with joy or disgusted by some aspect of the song.

I'd rather have a strong reaction than be neutral. "Tune-out songs" keep me tuned IN, to assess what aspects of the music
are so so attractive/repellant.

Playability? Eligibility? That's a double-edged sword, isn't it?

Die by familiarity or diversity? I'll take diversity.
Always hated the question of what 10 (lp)albums I'd want on a desert island.
I'd much rather have none, and be able to fully remember all the songs I know, knew, and wish I remembered.

I've offered numerous samples of my ISO 9001 (wink) Standardized-Trainwreck format AM aircheck audio to friends and as podcasts, and
not ONCE has anyone ever offered negative input regarding specifically "difficult listening" segments.

There heve been a few rather "neutral" recipients, but these folks have all been those who had already sorta impressed me as being either
neutral, "blindered", or otherwise closed-minded.

 

[TheBigA]

I've offered numerous samples of my ISO 9001 (wink) Standardized-Trainwreck format AM aircheck audio to friends and as podcasts, and
not ONCE has anyone ever offered negative input regarding specifically "difficult listening" segments.

Of course not...they're friends who share your interests and tastes. You're preaching to the converted.

That's not radio, that's file sharing. That's a social activity outside the realm of what has historically been called radio for the past 80-90 years. Radio is a mass medium that has been a business and a commercial operation for almost all of its history. Certainly there are social aspects to radio, and there are music aspects to the content. But what you're doing is interpersonal communications, rather than mass communications, and there is as difference, as those who've studied them know. Universities differentiate between the two, and so do professionals who engage in them.

 

[DavidKaye]

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.

Then what you're interested in belongs on non-commercial radio, not commercial radio. Those are two different animals. In non-comm, the listeners determine what will go on the air based on their contributions to the station. In commercial radio, the advertisers determine what will go on the air. Advertisers want X number of ears for X amount of money per thousand ears.

So, go get a shift at a college station.

 

[Tom Wells]

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.

Then what you're interested in belongs on non-commercial radio, not commercial radio. Those are two different animals. In non-comm, the listeners determine what will go on the air based on their contributions to the station. In commercial radio, the advertisers determine what will go on the air. Advertisers want X number of ears for X amount of money per thousand ears.

So, go get a shift at a college station.

Not eligible/non-student. Read the WZRD history. I already do what I do on part 15 AM and they can hear it over at the college 3 blocks away.

Naturally, darn near everyone here is involved with radio as bread and butter and paying the rent.

As with most arts, reduction to essential profitability results in pablum.
I'm reduced to the same in MY "professional" work electronic/electrical/computer "arts", too, just to keep a roof overhead, etc.

I'll die keeping some shred of radio in the servce of fun and what radio gave to me rather than profit I can count.

And, no, I'm not doing any social networking on the podcast. It goes out as a broadcast does. I have no time for interacting.
There are a few people at work who appreciate a CD occaisionally.

Then there's the neighborhood with lots and lots of people within a half mile....

 

[TheBigA]

And, no, I'm not doing any social networking on the podcast. It goes out as a broadcast does. I have no time for interacting.
There are a few people at work who appreciate a CD occaisionally.

The podcast is by definition social networking.

 

[michael hagerty]

And many of those so-called "stiffs" will come about as an "oh wow" response, songs that have not been heard in many years. People welcome change.

A good classic hits station has already determined the playability of every eligible song.

Playing songs that are not broadly liked simply causes large groups of listeners to tune out or to spend less time with your station.

They don't say "oh, wow". They say "oh, s--t" and tune out.

They aren't listeners. They are tune-out-ers.
Who needs 'em?

The radio station does. With the advent of PPM, there's no margin for error. In the diary days, you might....maybe....have been able to roll the dice on a song or two and hope that if any of the people you blew off were diary holders, they'd forget the tune-out by the time they filled in the diary.

Now, when that button is pushed and that listener goes to the competition, it's recorded instantaneously. If there are (for the sake of simplification) 10 PPM participants listening to your station and you decide to play an "oh wow" record that causes three of them to tune out, you haven't lost three listeners...you've lost 30% of your audience in Arbitron.

 

[TheBigA]

The radio station does. With the advent of PPM, there's no margin for error.

Exactly, and this is why it's hard for people outside the commercial radio business to understand how it works. The broadcasters work under rules created by advertisers and Arbitron, and those rules affect programming decisions. Non-commercial broadcasters or amateurs don't have to worry about those things. This is also why I believe it's important to have a healthy non-commercial system running alongside of the commercial system.

 

[landtuna]

The radio station does. With the advent of PPM, there's no margin for error.

Exactly, and this is why it's hard for people outside the commercial radio business to understand how it works. The broadcasters work under rules created by advertisers and Arbitron, and those rules affect programming decisions. Non-commercial broadcasters or amateurs don't have to worry about those things. This is also why I believe it's important to have a healthy non-commercial system running alongside of the commercial system.

I can only conclude from this discussion that it is the advertisers who have ruined radio.

 

[TheBigA]

I can only conclude from this discussion that it is the advertisers who have ruined radio.

That's a loaded statement. The advertisers pay the cost of the system, so they get to make the rules. By the same token, the advertisers are buying audience, so that involves creating a system that attracts the most people. The radio industry is simply delivering content that attracts the most people. As I've often said, people in radio have no musical or cultural agenda here. It's not like radio people don't know songs beyond their playlist, or it costs more to play a wider playlist. They just know what works.

As I said, the non-commercial system isn't motivated by advertisers or reaching the largest audience. That's why public radio was created in 1967. There is a group of people who feel all of broadcasting should be advertiser-supported. People also have the ability to subscribe to satellite radio, which also doesn't accept advertising. With all of that competition, 94% of the country still uses OTA radio. That percentage hasn't changed in about 12 years.

 

[michael hagerty]

The radio station does. With the advent of PPM, there's no margin for error.

Exactly, and this is why it's hard for people outside the commercial radio business to understand how it works. The broadcasters work under rules created by advertisers and Arbitron, and those rules affect programming decisions. Non-commercial broadcasters or amateurs don't have to worry about those things. This is also why I believe it's important to have a healthy non-commercial system running alongside of the commercial system.

I can only conclude from this discussion that it is the advertisers who have ruined radio.

There are people who've argued that since the first commercial was sold. But that's how the bills get paid. And realistically, if you're a business owner buying time on the radio, isn't it better to know how listeners really use the radio as opposed to their simply writing down the call letters of their favorite station for three hours each day when in fact, they spread their listening over three stations? Isn't it better that both the advertiser and the station know that they're only a third as effective at delivering the audience as they thought they were?

 

[landtuna]

That's a loaded statement. The advertisers pay the cost of the system, so they get to make the rules.

Correct me if I am mistaken but it hasn't always been the way it is today. 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.

In those days we had full service radio stations that programmed to a much wider audience than today - some would say many audiences. We had a huge inventory of ex-vaudville artists who were given shows which were enormously popular. Granted, radio in those days had the electronic entertainment of America almost to itself. And for people who could not afford to attend a concert or buy records it was a cheaper way to enjoy their time away from work.

Somewhere in the 60's or 70's science developed audience measurement and along came marketing types, instead of just salesmen, who determined which slices of the general population they wanted to sell their programs to. At the same time a proliferation of stations all but eliminated the full service variety so now we had a combination of niche stations who programmed to specific, narrow audiences.....and the marginalization of radio was on.

There are other reasons we are where we are of course and I personally don't have a good answer for what radio could have done as competition from other electronic mediums came online. 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. Perhaps if stations had been limited to a reasonable number by market there would not have been cutthroat competition and much lower spot costs. Perhaps if the FCC was still in the business of serving the public interest instead of doing a poor job of technical refereeing we might not have coast-to-coast signals that replicate the spread of McDonalds.

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.