Re: Yes, definitely it was.
>
> > I have the idea you do not understand programming or
> > research.
> Yes I do, but this thread answer is not really about
> programming. But let's say you are correct, well that's the
> reason radio and the music industry is in the toilet today.
> No one is buying & no one is listening like they were in the
> 60's and 70's.
Maybe I need to say it again, "I have the idea you do not understand programming or research."
The same percentage of people listen to radio wekly today as did in the 60's and 70's. Arbitrons started in '65, so we have the ability to compare apples with apples, methodology wise, too.
In fact, the PUR for radio in '75 is the same as it is today! So, except for an upswing in the late 80's, even the TSL to radio is the same as in the 60's and 70's.
The record industry has a different problem, one of having been really late to the airport on digital delivery. The plane left ahead of them, and a whole generation thinks it is ok to steal songs via P2P or pirated copies of CDs. This has nothing to do with radio.
> > 1. Consultants do not pick the music the listeners do.
> > Consusltants help station management to implement
> research,
> > image the station, plan promotions, train and find talent.
>
> >
> Consultants even if they are accurate , their the reason why
> oldies and radio sound stale today. It's been discussed many
> times before.
Consultants are, simply, people with wider experience and many successes behind them who can not afford to stay in a single market. There have been consultants since the 50's and there are consultants in every field of endeavor.
When you ask for a second opinion over a health issue, you are calling a consultant.
> Testers are a random bunch of people today.
> and the problem is, it's the same as picking or selecting a
> jury.
You really do not get this. A music test is not a bunch of people. It is a balanced random sample of people with very specific requirements. Often a music test has 6 or 7 doors that have to be gone through to qualify Done right, a test consists of a representative cross section of the age, sex, and ethnicity of the group that gives you 75% to 80% of your quarter hours.
> If you fill a group of testers that are 25 years old,
> or from different ethnic backgrounds or had only citizenship
> going back to 6 years and their selected....how are they
> going to identify with Paul Revere & the Raiders.
Here is a real and typicical oldies recruit spec:
1. what is your favorite station? If WXXX, go to 3. If not, go to 2.
2. What is your second favorite staiton? If WXXX, go to 3. If not, abort.
3. How many hours a week on average do you listen to WXXX? If less than 7, abort.
4. Male __ Female _ Quota 60% Female, 40% Male. Abort if quota filled.
5. What is your age? Quota 25% 35-39, 25% 40-44, 25% 45-49, 25% 50-54. Abort if quota filled.
6. Have you participated in a survey about the music you like in the ,last year? Y/N (If Y, abort)
7. Do you work for a radio station, newspaper, TV staitn or record or music company? If yes, abort.
In additon, there might be a P2 or P1 acceptability range for listening other than to WXXX. There might be ethnic controls. The opening question might not be asking about a station, but laying a pod of the kind of music WXXX plays and asking intent to listen). The recruit migh also exclude listening from 6-10 AM if the staiton has a very big morning show. After all, it is a music test.
Only then is the person asked to come to the test. They are told how much they will make...from $40 to $150 depending on city and format and demo.
> If you
> picked the exact audience in their late 40's to mid 50's and
> only them that grew up in the 60's...you would have complete
> different results.
You seek balance across the age range you want to attract. Yo do not sample grous you do not want. Like 18/34 or 55+ for oldies, as the first group does not listen much and the second will kill you.
> But agency advertisers don't want them.
Actually, it is the advertiser who does not want them, but I am tired of explaining tha tthe ad agency does not specify the age target... the marketing department at the advertiser does.
> It's like a selecting a liberal jury on trying a convicted
> murderer in a conservative town. And how accurate do you
> think the gallop poll is?
Within a range of a few percent, to be exact. Radio does not need any greater accuracy. A music test measures a station audience's preference quite well, as one can replicate the results consistently with 75 to 80 people as a minimum. That means we can test another 80 and another 80 and the results do not change more than a tiny percentage from group to group.
> Even the economists aren't accurate on today's economy. You
> probably feel the same effect. These polls are only in it
> for the advertising agencies today. Not for the personal
> listeners taste.
Music tests are not done for ad agencies. They are highly confidential. When I give results out, the recipient signs a confidentiality agreement. Tests are done to find out what songs to play so the ratings will be good, so the ad agencies will buy spots.
>
> > 2. Testers are a random selection of users of a station or
>
> > users of the station format. Generally, the reflect the
> > composition of the station or the desired ocmposition
> except
> > that they exclude light users (who represent minimum
> > potential). "Testers" are listeners pure and simpl.
> >
> Read the above again.
I don't need to. I have tested in AMTs or call out a hundred thousand or so people in the last couple of years. I know how accurate a test is when well done. You obviously do not. Again, apparently you do not have the experience, ahd have not seen a test done. Tests are not cheap, what with the high recruiting costs, etc. We are talking $150 thousand a year for oldies in LA, for example.
> >
> > Simple answer in two parts. Some of yesterdays' songs are
> > not liked today... they were hits but are not any more.
> > Second part: the songs, for whatever reason, do not test
> > high meaning that most listeners do not want to hear them
> > and many would change station if they heard them.
> >
>
> I wouldn't say that their not liked today, but more liked
> aged out.
In raido terms, they are no longer hits. A hit is a song someone wants to hear. Anything else is not.
> Yes the early 60's are ready for the nostalgic
> format. But my point on this whole thread is that just
> because something is getting up there...doesn't mean America
> hates it. Are you gonna hate your parents as they get older?
Now you are introducing age. The age issue is about who buys radio time. If the listeners are mostly over 55, you won't have many advertisers unless you are in a smaller market... agencies will not touch you. So one has to tailor the fomrat to appeal to under 55.
> >
> > All this is about the 60's. We are not programming in the
> > 60's. We are programming today. About 75% of 60's songs
> are
> > unappealing today to the bulk of people with any interest
> in
> > oldies.
> >
> Then why have an oldies format. Just call it the greatest
> selected hits of the 60's & whatever.
We can call it whatever you like. The name is not the issue. Whaterver we call it it must appeal to an audience advertisers want. And to make it appealing, we research very well what the desired group wants to hear and deliver it.
> 75%???..c'mon that's high. That's accurate if your including
> the USA population 30 and younger.
No, it is accurate for the under 55 listenrs to a 60's and early 70's oldies station. Of about 12 years worth of music, we are talking about using only about the best 40 to 50 per year... not the 200 or 250 that made the top 40 each year back then.
>
> > AC stations have no business playing this stuff, anyway.
>
> I see...the format should be only Celine Dion, Josh Grogan,
> Michael Buble....somebody get me a bucket.
Yes, it should be because that is what the AC listener wants. If you bothr to ask them, they do not want 60's oldies, they want AC tunes.
>
>
> >
> > Actually, satellite uses the same techniques. No
> difference.
> > It is all about asking listeners what they want to hear.
> > Paul revere is not among most folks choices.
> >
>
> Oh really....I heard a rare early hit from the Blenders on
> XM this morning. And I do here "Let Me", and "Mr. Sun Mr.
> Moon" occasionally on XM. You must have Sirius. Count the
> subscribers. Were not talking ratings or reasearch this
> time.
Yes, we are. I porgrammed 5 XM channels for several years. It is definitely about research, but the implementation is different to appeal to a different small group of people. They only need about 6% or 7% of the population to subscribe, and that is who they target. Literally, a fringe.
>
