-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Does anyone besides me think AC today is a joke?
- Thread starter Jasonthegreat
- Start date
It seems to me, if I read the statement/question correctly, that the answer to "where are the 900" is contained within "audiences are approving 300." If audiences consistently rated, say, 400 or 500 songs positively, then there would be no reason not to play them. But, if time after time, with varying groups, you see the same results generally repeating, then it seems to me the issue isn't with the people in the business, it's with the audience.
My personal musical sweet spot is in the 80s and 90s. I have 865 songs in my iTunes playlist covering those two decades. I have no particular inclination to determine how many were top 10s or number ones or what have you, but I'm pretty confident that I have a mix of big hits and some lesser hits that got airplay at the time, but wouldn't see the light of day today. I also have plenty of big hits not included because (a) I never liked them at the time to begin with or (b) my tastes changed.
Now I as an individual am no basis to program a radio format. But combine me with all kinds of other people who might be in a target audience, and you're going to see areas of overlap. Voila--the sweet spot for a broadcast medium. Even as a fan of music, I don't expect the radio stations to cater to my tastes. Where I find one that happens to match pretty closely, hey--awesome. But I have a plethora of ways to supplement that with other music I want to hear. Radio can't cater to the fringes and hope to be successful, not with one stream per station. (I'm not counting HD here for simplicity.)
Would playing some of those songs in the "900" hurt? Possibly so. I have XM. 80s on 8 is my first preset. They do a "lost hit" every hour. And I can tell you a good 8 or 9 times out of 10, that lost hit makes me punch the button to go somewhere else. Now, for XM, it makes no difference if I go to 90s on 9, right? So long as I shell out the bucks, it's all good. But if a broadcaster did that, and I leave them right away and go somewhere else, it's a potential problem. Sure, I might come back in 5 minutes...but maybe not. Maybe enough of those lost hit exposures will add up over time and send me somewhere else. So sure, I'll hear "Don't You Forget About Me" quite often, and not one of the lesser played hits that I happen to like, but so be it.
Thank you Bob, that was a very reasoned response that was put in a way that shouldn't offend anyone. I used to feel the same way as the music fans until it was explained to me on this board. I've been waiting a decade for others to come to the same conclusion. By the way, I see that McDonald's is now selling guacamole burgers!
Well perhaps, those lost hits others could enjoy without complaints. I appreciate your time and response. Thanks.
Wasn't there a thread with online traditional choices available?
Every format evolves and A/C is no different.
Every format evolves and A/C is no different.
McDonalds has been selling the McPalta avocado sauce covered burger in Argentina for two decades. They are just now bringing it here!
M
Music Lover
Guest
Music Lover's hubby again. Here's an example:
John Doe is a jazz enthusiast. He would like to listen to jazz while he's at work, away from his CD collection at home. There's no jazz station in his area and he has no access to streaming at work. How is someone like him supposed to listen to a jazz station when radio conglomerates don't offer that format in that person's area?
John Doe is a jazz enthusiast. He would like to listen to jazz while he's at work, away from his CD collection at home. There's no jazz station in his area and he has no access to streaming at work. How is someone like him supposed to listen to a jazz station when radio conglomerates don't offer that format in that person's area?
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.
M
Music Lover
Guest
Music Lover's hubby again. I see now why Music Lover gets fed up here. You just gave a run around but didn't answer the question. What is someone like John Doe to do when there is no option available for the music that person enjoys?
I did answer your question: niche formats that can't make money don't get exposure. I simply took the extra time to detail why that happens.
If a commercial radio station can't make money doing the format a small group of individuals would like, and no non-commercial station can get the needed donor support, then those folks are out of luck.
I don't have a Spanish language contemporary station where I live. I wish there was one. But the format was tried, but it got a very low share, and it eventually changed programming. But I know that I don't have a right to have every kind of music or entertainment I like on the radio. So I settle for what is available or I listen to music on my smartphone or stream or, if in the car, listen to satellite radio.
Last edited:
M
Music Lover
Guest
Music Lover's hubby again. No. You did not. The question is this: what is John Doe to do when there is no option (nothing local and no access to streaming or satellite) available?
If there is no jazz station locally, then they have to listen to something else or nothing at all.
And that is what I have now said three times.
No city has enough stations with decent signals to do all the possible formats. So the ones that are likely to make money are the ones that get exposure. The fringe formats of all kinds don't get a platform as they can not sustain operations. People looking for those same fringe, limited appeal formats are just plain outta' luck.
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
ARRRRGHHHHH!
You still don't get it.
Even if "others" enjoy those songs, if it makes enough of the audience punch the button, as Bob says, and they take a while to come back (or, if it's happened enough to really annoy them, they don't come back) then the ratings go down, the owners take a revenue hit, the PD becomes unemployed, and no one -- except you -- is happy.
I don't question that someone else would like the lost hit that sends me scrambling to change the preset. Nor do I question that the 1 or 2 out of 10 lost hits I like would not send someone else reaching for the preset button, gagging all the way. But I think that begs the question, why would you actually play songs that only a handful of people (as a relative term here) would enjoy? If eight out of 10 people tell you "no" to one song, and another configuration of 8 tell you "no" to another, but some other combination of 8 tells you "yes" to a third song, which one makes sense to play, and which ones don't? If you're going to drive away 8 people vs 2 people...well, it seems pretty clear what you do.
The other thing I think bears considering is that, on average, people don't pay nearly as close attention to playlists as the handful of vocal critics and message-board types, myself included, do. I play music most of my workday in the background. Quite often, it's some type of streaming, often a broadcast station. If you offered me a million bucks most nights, I couldn't recite for you the vast majority of songs played, because the music was background. It set a mood, a tempo, a feeling if you will. I tend to notice more when something disrupts that mood, and then i just switch over to another stream and go on my merry way. But I've seen the conversations take place where people scrutinize playlists to see how often songs are played, and I'm just amazed by that, when most people won't hear the songs twice, because of the way people actually use the medium.
But that's not new, is it? It's certainly not about "conglomerates." I would ask this, though: in this hypothetical scenario, John Doe has an ability to have a radio at work, just not streaming, and not satellite, right? So why wouldn't John also be able to use an iPod? Buy some digital music, load it up on a relatively low cost iPod Nano, or Shuffle, and have at it. And if John doesn't want to buy the music, but as noted, as a CD collection, just rip the CDs to MP3. No internet needed.
There are ways to fulfill niche tastes. John is fortunate that there are more of them today than in decades past. Some niche tastes just aren't profitable as a business model.
M
Music Lover
Guest
Music Lover's hubby again. Some bosses frown upon that, considering it not very professional.
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.
Good night and goodbye to all.
Last edited:
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
And, even though you and your spouse don't see it (or perhaps you are in denial over the explanations), radio is for a broad audience. What we have here is a situation where you aren't realizing/accepting the fact that your format of choice does not attract a broad audience, and therefore is not profitable to program.
Also, it is not radio's job to find a way to accommodate those non-broad audience listeners. It is our job to program to that broad audience ... defined as the highest percentage of the total available listeners.
You are sadly redefining "broad" to mean something it does not ... at least, not when defined for radio. A format that is not pop/rock/hip hop/country in origin is not going to attract a broad audience. The listeners to jazz -- taking your example -- are not within the classification of "broad", as they are a numerical minority of the available listeners.
To say that you do not like the music which is liked by the broad audience, and then attempt to count yourself within the broad audience, is at best disingenuous.
Of course you are.
You need to put on your thinking cap and come up with a solution to the problem. It's YOUR problem, not ours.
There simply aren't enough OTA radio stations in every town to serve every individual personal taste in music. So the radio stations pick the most popular genres. If you can find a way to add more radio stations to the dial, let me know.
There are multiple styles of jazz, from Big Band to Bee Bop. Fletcher Henderson fans don't usually like Gil Evans. You'd need at least ten different radio stations just to satisfy the jazz fans.
BTW where is satellite radio NOT available?
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. 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.
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.
And yes, I am happy....with 690, a model ALL classic hits stations should adopt!
Last edited:
- Status