RockMustLive said:105.7 The EDGE, before it became the garbage pool known as The X
I actually think this station has the best morning show in the market. So I'm curious to know why you think this station is a garbage pool.
RockMustLive said:105.7 The EDGE, before it became the garbage pool known as The X
FormerXer said:Unfortunate as it may be, it's not about the music. It's about target demos, advertisers, and turning a profit. And if they see an opportunity to make more money with the current format, it's a no-brainer. Money > music.
RockMustLive said:FormerXer said:Unfortunate as it may be, it's not about the music. It's about target demos, advertisers, and turning a profit. And if they see an opportunity to make more money with the current format, it's a no-brainer. Money > music.
Point well taken! It just seems kind of counter-intuitive to me. If music is the main programming of a station, why not try and make your station stand out by being the first to break new artists, etc? I don't know how much more effort, manpower or money that would take but you'd think someone would try it.
.If music is the main programming of a station, why not try and make your station stand out by being the first to break new artists, etc?
actualy in the 70s and VERY early 80s I thought WSBA-fm (103.3) did the "Beautiful Music" thing better t han "nice" or WHP FM. I worked there at the time and they really had a strong focus on that format. and as I recall the ratings were pretty good.....( like #1..6a to 7p).johnnyu said:WNCE-FM Lancaster of the 1970's and 1980's. WHP-FM of the same era.
RockofHBG said:There has been an ongoing debate probably since the advent of Top 40 radio in the 1950s. Many people think that for a radio station to appeal to a wide audience, it needs to be musically broad and deep. Normal logic would dictate the more, different songs a station plays, the more popular it would be, right? This opinion has been shared by both those in and out of radio. It seems to be reinforced when you ask just about anybody's opinion, they'll tell you their favorite radio has too much repetition. So why doesn't a long playlist work? First of all, a radio station's reach is limited by its broadcast signal (at this point most stations' stream is not a factor). Secondly, real radio listening is quite short, whether measured by diary or PPM. A good station has an average TSL of two hours a week. If this fact were to change, it might alter the way radio stations are programmed. But in the real world, in order to get good ratings, a station must build a consensus. This is done playing very familiar and very popular songs often to cash in on the short TSL. There are relatively few songs, both old and new at any given time to make this work. So why the complaints? There is small percentage of a station's audience who listen far more than the average and that's where the complaints come from. Add this fact: no radio station can be programmed to any one person's taste and be successful, particularly when trying to build "consensus". Then add in that radio listening costs the consumer nothing , so there is no commitment to the station. Broadcast music radio is the original short attention span and instant gratification medium. More program directors understand this paradigm than ever before. But it's not new. Radio programming geniuses like Rick Sklar and Bill Drake knew this before many others. If you don't believe me, compare airchecks from WABC and KHJ from the 60s to any other station of that era, and you will clearly hear the difference. The short familiar playlist will probably always be what is needed to be mass appeal and highly rated.
no radio station can be programmed to any one person's taste and be successful