Does anyone besides me think AC today is a joke?

[davideduardo]

I DO NOT believe AT ALL that lost hits, even if rarely played are such a major tune out that ratings will crash, if played. I am not asking for a radio station to play JUST lost hits, I am asking them to play the tested hits and to play SOME lost hits every hour (maybe two every hour). I truly have a hard time believing that just TWO songs will cause ratings to go down. These lost hits are not low charters, they are not "Mr. Jaws" type songs, they are not songs that peaked at #99, these are not "Having My Baby" type songs, these are just good songs that KRTH has refused to play, PERIOD.

I've told you before that those of us who program in the 48 PPM markets can subscribe to the MediaMonitors service that gives us what are called MScores for the play of each song in our library. Using multi play averaging, the MScore tells us when songs cause PPM panelists to leave the station. And if we see that every time a particular song plays, there is statistically significant audience attrition, we stop playing it.

Your "lost oldie", which is just another term for a song that we don't play normally because it did not test well, will always cause fairly high audience attrition. I know because I have had to fix stations that wanted a larger library for "variety" and thus were including a lot of those "lost oldies". You could tell which songs those were from the MScore. When checked against the station's music test, I'd see that the songs were low scorers that should not have been played. When nuked, the stations' ratings always went up.

One thing is for a morning show to play one "dreaded morning oldie" each day (generally an edited short version) and to have fun with it. Another matter entirely is playing two an hour, which is nearly 20% of a station's spins, every hour, every day. That's a formula for the immediate killing of a radio station.

 

[semoochie]

Jazz, where it is available, comes predominantly from non-commercial stations bellow 92 on the dial.

The reason is that there is no way to make any money from the very small audience that jazz attracts. Commercial stations would go bankrupt doing jazz today. Advertising rates are proportional to the size of a station's audience, and the few commercial jazz stations have had to look for other alternatives long, long ago.

A pseudo-jazz derivative, "smooth jazz", lasted from the late 80's to the late 00's. It gradually disappeared from radio due to dwindling audience size and the aging of those listeners; advertisers essentially don't buy to reach anyone over 55.

When the biggest "conglomerate" has 800 stations out of 15,000 there are still plenty of stations owned by smaller companies and independent operators. In any case, format decisions are based on whether a particular radio format can generate enough listenership in the right ages to make it interesting to advertisers.

Since you mentioned "Jazz", I'm surprised that non-comms continue to program it. It's always been somewhat of a niche and must really be by now! If PBS pledge drives are any indication, I would think that 60s Oldies would be just the ticket. Regarding "lost hits": One of my local HD2 stations features "Real Oldies". Today, I heard them play "Have I The Right", a perfectly reasonable top five song but it was followed by the announcer saying "double play" and lo and behold, they came up with another Honeycombs song! I didn't think there were any. This was called "I Can't Stop It" and it peaked at #48. Has anyone heard it before? There's nothing about this song that struck me as memorable and I sure don't remember it. If I'd been in the car, I probably would have changed the station. I know the HD2 is a limited audience but this seems like a very poor idea. If you're going to play 50 year old music, at least, let's be able to recognize the songs.

 

[Bob Eubanks]

Music Lover's hubby again. Some bosses frown upon that, considering it not very professional.

This seems to continue what I could only describe as an absurd hypothetical. The "bosses" allow a radio of John's choosing but not an iPod (which, by the way, can be used with an inexpensive plug-in speaker, not headphones). And there are cheap, compact "boom box" type radios with CD players still to be had. (Wait, let me guess, John is physically incapable of bringing a CD with him on the commute to work, too.) The answer is for John to get a new job. Or petition his bosses to change the policy. Or suck it up and move on in life. No other industry is responsible for solving every potential workplace discomfort.

I'm in agreement with Music Lover on this. Radio should be for a BROAD audience, NOT just to people of certain ages and NOT just for only those who like pop/rock/hip hop/country (which are the only music formats in most areas these days, due to consolidation). No wonder we have encountered so many people in our community, both young and old, who say "radio sucks". Judging by the responses here, the corporate apologists are obviously too biased to see that.

How is consolidation responsible for that (faulty) list of the "only" available music formats? If you magically undid consolidation, how would there suddenly be a plethora of new formats? It seems to me you'd likely have more stations competing with one another in a more limited set of formats to grab a viable enough slice of the pie to stay in business.

 

[Bob Eubanks]

Nah, KM. I DO get it. I was planning on not posting, but since you once again answered me with frustration, I will answer, again.

I DO NOT believe AT ALL that lost hits, even if rarely played are such a major tune out that ratings will crash, if played.

But hasn't David explained there is evidence--repeated, not isolated--that it is what happens? It sounds from what I take away from David's knowledge that my personal experience is more in keeping with how many listeners react. Color me surprised to be "normal" on at least one front, but apparently it's the case. There are all kinds of off the wall things I like, but if the evidence, over and over again, tells me the general public feels differently, I'm not going to dispute facts, so I ask, sincerely, why would you not take such knowledge at face value?

I am not asking for a radio station to play JUST lost hits, I am asking them to play the tested hits and to play SOME lost hits every hour (maybe two every hour). I truly have a hard time believing that just TWO songs will cause ratings to go down. These lost hits are not low charters, they are not "Mr. Jaws" type songs, they are not songs that peaked at #99, these are not "Having My Baby" type songs, these are just good songs that KRTH has refused to play, PERIOD.

Is that too much to freakin' ask for? Seriously man.

Honestly, not sarcastically, yes. I think it is. I don't get the idea that a station "refused" to play them, as if it's some kind of personal thing. We're talking a mighty big station here, with reams of evidence about what the target audience, on the whole, wants. I mean, do we even agree on that much here?

On another note, I had friends over to listen to my wonderful collection of LOST HITS at home for 4 hours today, including Barbra Streisand and Trini Lopez music and everything in between. Not ONE complaint or anyone leaving early or anyone tuning out or any bad comments, except GOOD comments about memories and the instruments in music. They were ALL enjoyed and thanked for, because they were not heard in years, in a very long time. Now I realize that radio is not the same as a home get together. But I'd bet you, if they heard the same songs over the air, they would not tune out.

In fact, half the songs were requested!! That in itself should tell you something.

But a hunch, or a bet, isn't evidence. I took some statistics courses in college because it fascinated me. I didn't have the head to make it a career, but I get the principles at work, and understand quite well how sampling produces valid results, when done according to established methods. Perhaps your set of friends--and there the "like attracts like" principle may apply--would not tune out. But evidence--factual, real evidence--says they will, because they have.

 

[TheBigA]

Since you mentioned "Jazz", I'm surprised that non-comms continue to program it.

Well that's a good point, and I can tell you that there are a lot fewer non-coms programming jazz today than there were ten years ago. Most recently WBFO in Buffalo. That was a station that had offered a lot of jazz and blues programming, and jazz is now only available at night. NPR recently dropped its nationally syndicated JazzSet after a 23 year run. The reason is that there's more passion, thus more membership money, in news.

By the same token there are fewer folk music non-coms. There's a big battle going on in Boston with the University of Massachusetts station WUMB. It's a heritage folk/alternative station that is playing less folk. The longtime fans of Pete Seeger and other 60s folkies are up in arms. They had sponsored the Boston Folk Music Festival. It's since gone away. Even the word "folk" is not being used, similar to the way Oldies is not being used. NPR still distributes Mountain Stage and The Thistle & Shamrock, but who knows for how much longer.

We're talking about non-commercial radio, stations that aren't under pressure from advertisers to reach certain demographics. The reason this music is going away isn't the age of the listeners, but a combination of their diminishing size and their unwillingness to pay for the music. These formats simply don't raise as much money as news. So the point here is that it's one thing to expect that you can hear any genre of music on the radio. But the money HAS to come from somewhere. If advertisers only want certain listeners, then it's up to those who aren't in that group to step up to the plate with their own money. If that's a problem, if finances prevent it, then maybe it's time to find a different line of work, or be more tolerant of more popular styles of music. Music on the radio is not a right, and those who make the music want to get paid.

 

[TheBigA]

I had friends over to listen to my wonderful collection of LOST HITS at home for 4 hours today, including Barbra Streisand and Trini Lopez music and everything in between. Not ONE complaint or anyone leaving early or anyone tuning out or any bad comments, except GOOD comments about memories and the instruments in music.

You don't seem to understand the difference between inviting a few of your friends over to your house and running a radio station aiming at thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of people. These are two very different things. They're being polite! If you had people over who weren't your friends, you'd find this out. Once again, personal music devices have been available for over 100 years. They are not the same thing as radio stations. One is aimed at individuals, the other is aimed at the mass audience. Understand? Micro vs. macro. A radio station that programs just to your friends will not stay in business long. Since neither you nor your friends are about to PAY for hearing those songs, we have to get the money from some place. Someone has to pay the electric bill, the rent, and the music itself. Once again, if people like you would just be willing to pay a monthly fee, deducted from your credit card or bank, you'd find radio stations falling over themselves to program what you want. But you want us to do it for free, and that's simply not possible.

 

[oldies76]

But hasn't David explained there is evidence--repeated, not isolated--that it is what happens? It sounds from what I take away from David's knowledge that my personal experience is more in keeping with how many listeners react. Color me surprised to be "normal" on at least one front, but apparently it's the case. There are all kinds of off the wall things I like, but if the evidence, over and over again, tells me the general public feels differently, I'm not going to dispute facts, so I ask, sincerely, why would you not take such knowledge at face value?

Yes he has. And I have learned more things about radio from his knowledge (and the other pros here) than I knew before when I first joined RD.

Is just that every time I hear great top 40 music personally, I get a bit hyped as to why in the heck classic hits radio will not play such good music. Call it personal I suppose.

 

[oldies76]

You don't seem to understand the difference between inviting a few of your friends over to your house and running a radio station aiming at thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of people. These are two very different things. Once again, personal music devices have been available for over 100 years. They are not the same thing as radio stations. One is aimed at individuals, the other is aimed at the mass audience. Understand? Micro vs. macro.

You are right Big A.

Well, as a music collector, I am grateful I'm not part of the "mass audience" and their content of small, repetitive playlists. They are truly missing out.

 

[TheBigA]

I am grateful I'm not part of the "mass audience" and their content of small, repetitive playlists. They are truly missing out.

If you invited THEM over to your house, they'd tell you they're grateful they're not like you.

 

[boombox4]

One of the problems with discussions like this is the public airwaves are often perceived to be intended to serve all of the public (after all, they're "public airwaves", right?), but they're not.

They're intended as a licensed vehicle for radio businesses to serve the public, while making enough money to either make a profit or stay on the air.

One of the consequences of this is that large segments of the public are not going to feel like they're being 'served' -- including large slices of the demographic pie, whether age or culturally based.

I gave up wanting to hear my favorite music on the radio long ago. That's what a CD player or Mp3 player is for. In my metro there are various commercial and non-comm FMs and numerous AMs, many of which play ethnic or other music. There still is variety to listen to. I just don't expect my favorites on there. I try to open my ears a bit instead. But that's just me.

As far as AC goes, it never was my favorite genre, but it seems to have needed to evolve just like classic rock, classic hits, and other genres that need to adapt or die. I'd rather these genres adapt than die altogether.

 

[Bob Eubanks]

Yes he has. And I have learned more things about radio from his knowledge (and the other pros here) than I knew before when I first joined RD.

Is just that every time I hear great top 40 music personally, I get a bit hyped as to why in the heck classic hits radio will not play such good music. Call it personal I suppose.

OK, totally fair. But it seems that was also answered, objectively and non-personally. They don't play them because, for whatever reason, the target audience, viewed as a massive entity as it must be, lost interest in the songs.

There's a lot of songs that were big hits in the 70s that I remember from my pre-teen years listening to the waning days of WIP in Philadelphia as a music station. I'd still recognize them, and do if I scan by XM's '70s on 7 and one is playing. But by and large, I do not have any interest in hearing them again. And if I were to be in a music test, I'd rate them as such. So today, if WOGL is playing them, I'm tuning out--instantly. If my tastes tend to overlap with those of plurality of people like me, that WOGL (or whatever station you prefer) actually wanted to reach, well...there's the answer. To me, that's not "refusal to play" for the sake of refusing to play, it's refusing to play because the audience says so.

 

[Han Solo]

How is consolidation responsible for that list of the "only" available music formats? If you magically undid consolidation, how would there suddenly be a plethora of new formats? It seems to me you'd likely have more stations competing with one another in a more limited set of formats to grab a viable enough slice of the pie to stay in business.

Media consolidation is not a good thing, as many liberal news articles like these tell.

http://www.salon.com/2001/06/28/telecom_dereg/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/26/414572/-Why-Media-Consolidation-Matters

 

[Phantom]

You have a generation of people who can store music on their computers. They don't need radio to find out about music anymore.

 

[oldies76]

If you invited THEM over to your house, they'd tell you they're grateful they're not like you.

Oh so funny. They actually look forward to hearing the lost hits every time.
You can keep the personal comments in your mind next time...thank you.

 

[oldies76]

OK, totally fair. But it seems that was also answered, objectively and non-personally. They don't play them because, for whatever reason, the target audience, viewed as a massive entity as it must be, lost interest in the songs.

There's a lot of songs that were big hits in the 70s that I remember from my pre-teen years listening to the waning days of WIP in Philadelphia as a music station. I'd still recognize them, and do if I scan by XM's '70s on 7 and one is playing. But by and large, I do not have any interest in hearing them again. And if I were to be in a music test, I'd rate them as such. So today, if WOGL is playing them, I'm tuning out--instantly. If my tastes tend to overlap with those of plurality of people like me, that WOGL (or whatever station you prefer) actually wanted to reach, well...there's the answer. To me, that's not "refusal to play" for the sake of refusing to play, it's refusing to play because the audience says so.

Interestingly, you mentioned WOGL. They do have an above-average playlist with nice holiday weekend specials. One of the few classic hits stations that still do this. Please check your PM. I'm sending you a link to a special aired a long time ago. Please provide some feedback, if desired.

I appreciate the responses you've given.

 

[TheBigA]

Oh so funny. They actually look forward to hearing the lost hits every time.
You can keep the personal comments in your mind next time...thank you.

You obviously misunderstood my post. Read the quote I was responding to.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Is that too much to freakin' ask for? Seriously man.

Yes, it is, for reasons explained dozens of times in the threads you have inhabited. Seriously.

 

[oldies76]

You obviously misunderstood my post. Read the quote I was responding to.

Sorry, my bad. I Got it.

 

[K.M. Richards]

If you magically undid consolidation, how would there suddenly be a plethora of new formats? It seems to me you'd likely have more stations competing with one another in a more limited set of formats to grab a viable enough slice of the pie to stay in business.

Which, of course, is precisely what was the case prior to consolidation.

Within any market -- large, medium, or small -- there used to be "top-40 wars" as two (or sometimes more, in larger markets) went head-to-head trying to best each other's performance in the ratings. Most people with a sense of history remember the legendary Bill Drake's "boss radio" top-40 format on KHJ here in Los Angeles in 1965. What isn't remembered is that Drake knocked off not one competitor but two ... KRLA and KFWB. That's two stations that weren't running some other format.

Los Angeles also used to have multiple country stations. None of those were motivated to program a niche format instead.

MOR (Middle Of the Road, what we now call Adult Standards) stations proliferated in every market. L.A. had both KMPC and KFI on the AM dial in 1965, plus several "beautiful music" stations on both AM and FM playing a lot of the same music but without air personalities. Heck, KHJ was competing in that format battle before Drake came along.

Music Lover (and spouse) obviously have a romanticized memory of the past which is not consistent with what the facts show as the actual history. All arguments based on same therefore fail.

 

[semoochie]

Which, of course, is precisely what was the case prior to consolidation.

Within any market -- large, medium, or small -- there used to be "top-40 wars" as two (or sometimes more, in larger markets) went head-to-head trying to best each other's performance in the ratings. Most people with a sense of history remember the legendary Bill Drake's "boss radio" top-40 format on KHJ here in Los Angeles in 1965. What isn't remembered is that Drake knocked off not one competitor but two ... KRLA and KFWB. That's two stations that weren't running some other format.

Los Angeles also used to have multiple country stations. None of those were motivated to program a niche format instead.

MOR (Middle Of the Road, what we now call Adult Standards) stations proliferated in every market. L.A. had both KMPC and KFI on the AM dial in 1965, plus several "beautiful music" stations on both AM and FM playing a lot of the same music but without air personalities. Heck, KHJ was competing in that format battle before Drake came along.

Music Lover (and spouse) obviously have a romanticized memory of the past which is not consistent with what the facts show as the actual history. All arguments based on same therefore fail.

That used to be not such a bad idea when FM didn't really enter the picture because there were far fewer competitive signals. In Portland OR, for about half of the 1960s, all viable signals were some kind of MOR(KOIN was actually CBS block programming, left over from pre-television.)except KWJJ which switched from MOR to Country in 1965 and KISN, the local Top 40 outlet. By the way, it occurred to me that some people may have grown up entirely on just one Top 40 station and since in those days, they really played all popular genres that it might be possible that not being able to change stations, when an unliked song played,(We couldn't even tune out the commerials!)might have a wider appreciation for music. This could be at least part of the reason that some on this board steadfastly cling to the idea of large playlists.