iHeartMedia clusters that have zero local personalities

[davideduardo]

The common aspect though, is successful radio stations play the hits. The hits, as divided between formats and cultural aspects of taste, are still hits. There are hits in every format.

What is being missed in this discussion is that the size of the audience for each specific format is different in each market. Some markets are older, some are more ethnic and so on. So in a highly Black and/or Hispanic market, rock and country will not do as well. And in a very non-Hispanic white market, rock will do better and Churban may not even have a place.

But within the vague boundaries of each format, the hits are the hits and the stiffs are still stiffs.

 

[TheBigA]

Moreover, a good chunk of the homogeneity started before Sirius XM became popular.

I agree with this. Homogeneity began in the 1940s when radio began playing recorded music and charts started tracking what stations were playing. The minute a radio station played recorded music rather than house bands or other live music, you saw the same songs being played everywhere. Record labels WANT national hits. They can't make money with music that's only played in Boston or regionally. They need a national platform for music. This is when charts started tracking what stations were playing. PDs would see the charts, and know what songs to play. In the 60s, everyone wanted to know what Rick Sklar was playing at WABC. You would hear those same songs played on WLS and other ABC stations, as well as other groups seeking to copy what WABC was doing. The production music started to sound the same as well. They all bought jingle packages from the same jingle houses jike JAM or PAMS, with the same singers and musicians. The DJs sounded the same because they went to national conventions and shared aircheck tapes. There was a certain sound you wanted to achieve, and you could do that because everyone was in touch with each other and sharing ideas.

So yes, the homogeneity began 70 years ago. What you're hearing now is nothing new. The only reason you know about it is because of streaming, where you can sit at home and listen to thousands of radio stations around the country. But what they're doing was being done in the 60s. If you go to American Radio History, you can see the R&R charts from the period and see how many stations were playing the exact same songs all across the country. That's why we all know those songs. But it's more about the music business (which also consolidated in the 80s and 90s) and not as much about radio.

 

[ScottBurns]

Maybe a huge bore to you, but your tastes are not an indicator of a much larger audience.

And I’ve said multiple times that this is my opinion, to which I’m entitled. I don’t claim to speak for anyone else. But I can tell you that many people on this board agree with me.

The common aspect though, is successful radio stations play the hits. The hits, as divided between formats and cultural aspects of taste, are still hits. There are hits in every format.

You’re talking about something different. There’s a ton of regional variation in this country. Classic Hits stations need not play the same songs across the entire country. Certain songs are far more popular in some regions than others.

As David pointed out; talent is utilized across multiple markets via live simulcast or voicetracks. As someone else pointed out (apologies for missing who), that I can see a day where remaining radio talent are, like most movie and TV actors/actresses, become contractors instead of employees.

And while that is true, the fact that iHeart has invested in personalities outside of morning drive proves your point wrong. The PM drive shows in Philly and Boston are live and local.

 

[ScottBurns]

I agree with this. Homogeneity began in the 1940s when radio began playing recorded music and charts started tracking what stations were playing. The minute a radio station played recorded music rather than house bands or other live music, you saw the same songs being played everywhere. Record labels WANT national hits. They can't make money with music that's only played in Boston or regionally. They need a national platform for music. This is when charts started tracking what stations were playing. PDs would see the charts, and know what songs to play. In the 60s, everyone wanted to know what Rick Sklar was playing at WABC. You would hear those same songs played on WLS and other ABC stations, as well as other groups seeking to copy what WABC was doing. The production music started to sound the same as well. They all bought jingle packages from the same jingle houses jike JAM or PAMS, with the same singers and musicians. The DJs sounded the same because they went to national conventions and shared aircheck tapes. There was a certain sound you wanted to achieve, and you could do that because everyone was in touch with each other and sharing ideas.

So yes, the homogeneity began 70 years ago. What you're hearing now is nothing new. The only reason you know about it is because of streaming, where you can sit at home and listen to thousands of radio stations around the country. But what they're doing was being done in the 60s. If you go to American Radio History, you can see the R&R charts from the period and see how many stations were playing the exact same songs all across the country. That's why we all know those songs. But it's more about the music business (which also consolidated in the 80s and 90s) and not as much about radio.

The playlist homogeneity is relatively new. Again, I can provide countless examples of how stations of the same format, a mere 50 miles apart, had significant playlist variation in 1995.

 

[ScottBurns]

For it to be worthwhile, it has to be done with professional recruitment by a professional research company. A couple of large groups have had their own research divisions, such as Clear Chanel and HBC. Most hire companies like NuVooDoo or Harker or Coleman or Edison.

Some stations used to do their own local callout on currents, but using software and procedures they bought from one of a couple of providers like ComQuest.

And Y-100 totally destroyed its heritage of being highly Hispanic focused and very rhythmic. That is the mistake of management.

That is where we are heading, but the biggest issue is that no company owns a set of stations in the same format in all of the top 50 to 100 markets. So the process of doing what is standard nearly everywhere in the world is just not yet implemented here.

Heck, it has taken 25 years for US radio companies to understand how to operate multiple stations in the same market. I still hear of cases where there are prohibitions for any sister station playing any of the same songs as another station in the cluster.

And you think all of this has created better, more compelling radio?

 

[davideduardo]

So yes, the homogeneity began 70 years ago. What you're hearing now is nothing new. The only reason you know about it is because of streaming, where you can sit at home and listen to thousands of radio stations around the country. But what they're doing was being done in the 60s. If you go to American Radio History, you can see the R&R charts from the period and see how many stations were playing the exact same songs all across the country. That's why we all know those songs. But it's more about the music business (which also consolidated in the 80s and 90s) and not as much about radio.

In support of your position, we can go back to the way the record labels supported the "Tip Sheets" going back to Gavin who started in the late 50's and was then followed by an explosion of the genre with FMQB, Hamilton, Radio & Records and a whole bunch more in the 70's.

There were rock sheets, Top 40 ones, Country editions and even college station publications. Almost all were full of record company ads for the new releases that they were working (the exception was one college radio sheet that felt that selling ads was a sell-out).

If you were at a key major market station that reported to one or more of the tip sheets, you could count on lots of calls and visits from "record ducks" on the day or two before weekly reporting, all saying "play my record" over and over.

And we looked at those sheets in great detail, knowing that it was a great way to find songs that were moving that we needed to consider strongly. It was also a way to make sure that we had not missed a song that was breaking big at a station we followed closely and respected.

And thanks for mentioning www.worldradiohistory.com!

Most of the tip sheets are located in the sub-heading of "Radio and Music" part way down https://worldradiohistory.com/index.htm

For those unfamiliar, at most stations magazines like Billboard, Cash Box and Record World were either not received or only viewed for the artist news and not the charts. Tip Sheets were based on weekly reports from as many as a hundred or more stations in a format showing the adds, drops, powers, fast risers and the like. That data was tabulated to show the big moves of the week.

 

[davideduardo]

The playlist homogeneity is relatively new. Again, I can provide countless examples of how stations of the same format, a mere 50 miles apart, had significant playlist variation in 1995.

Again, that is usually due to a different competitive array in each market. And, obviously there are lots of cases of stations that go early on some songs dropping them to recurrent when other more conservative stations are just warming them up.

Back in the 60's we all were amused by how WABC generally went on a song three, four and even five weeks after the earliest adopters.

 

[TheBigA]

The playlist homogeneity is relatively new. Again, I can provide countless examples of how stations of the same format, a mere 50 miles apart, had significant playlist variation in 1995.

No it's not and if you just take the time to look at 50 year old charts you'll see. The exceptions are not the rule. The majority of the hit songs from the 60s were played on Top 40 stations and even MOR or Adult Contemporary stations at the time. These are the songs we still know now. As I said, record labels were pushing homogeneity because it sold records. Johnny Cash became much bigger than country music because Boy Named Sue got played on Top 40 radio. Same with Roger Miller and King of the Road. This was done by the record labels pushing these songs nationally. Plus you had national music shows on TV such as Smothers Brothers, Ed Sullivan, Bandstand, Soul Train, Midnight Special, and more pushing these same songs nationally.

 

[davideduardo]

And you think all of this has created better, more compelling radio?

What the biggest factor is today is the loss of about two-thirds of radio's revenue over the last two decades.

And most of us don't think of the word "compelling" in relation to our stations. "Entertaining" fits morning shows that are good, while being "good company" fits most of the rest of the day on music stations.

 

[davideduardo]

No it's not and if you just take the time to look at 50 year old charts you'll see. The exceptions are not the rule. The majority of the hit songs from the 60s were played on Top 40 stations and even MOR or Adult Contemporary stations at the time. These are the songs we still know now. As I said, record labels were pushing homogeneity because it sold records. Johnny Cash became much bigger than country music because Boy Named Sue got played on Top 40 radio. Same with Roger Miller and King of the Road. This was done by the record labels pushing these songs nationally. Plus you had national music shows on TV such as Smothers Brothers, Ed Sullivan, Bandstand, Soul Train, Midnight Special, and more pushing these same songs nationally.

And in the 60's there were far, far fewer viable radio stations. And far fewer distinct formats.

If we look at 1965, there were just a handful of formats: Top 40, MOR, R&B and Country. So labels could push songs to just a handful of key program directors and bring a song home. Today, a "good" rhythmic song can get possible adds on CHR, Churban, Urban, and even Hot AC. That means working 300 to 400 stations or more in the Top 100 markets.

 

[TheBigA]

And you think all of this has created better, more compelling radio?

For the millions of people who listen to commercial radio today: Yes. There is no better, more effective way of turning songs into hits than constant radio airplay. None of the streaming services have figured out how to do it. I was at a convention with music industry people over the wknd, and they all spoke to the incredible power of hit songs on the radio, and how much that can do for an artist in terms of selling records and filling arenas for concerts. The artists who don't get airplay don't live in that world.

You have to understand that I see the results of radio airplay every week at concerts filled with people who hear these hit songs played coast to coast, singing them at the top of their lungs. They LOVE this music. So yes, it's better and more compelling for them. Maybe not for you, but that's OK. We don't program to people who don't listen.

 

[TheBigA]

If we look at 1965, there were just a handful of formats: Top 40, MOR, R&B and Country. So labels could push songs to just a handful of key program directors and bring a song home.

They were all playing from the same bank of songs promoted by the same major labels. They may not get the same amount of airplay in each format. Al Hirt was bigger in MOR than Top 40. Johnny Cash had many more hits in country than in pop. But he received airplay in both places. Once again, this is mainly the music industry recording and promoting these songs and trying to sell records. They may not be as big into physical product today, but the record labels are the money behind the music.

 

[ScottBurns]

For the millions of people who listen to commercial radio today: Yes. There is no better, more effective way of turning songs into hits than constant radio airplay. None of the streaming services have figured out how to do it. I was at a convention with music industry people over the wknd, and they all spoke to the incredible power of hit songs on the radio, and how much that can do for an artist in terms of selling records and filling arenas for concerts. The artists who don't get airplay don't live in that world.

You have to understand that I see the results of radio airplay every week at concerts filled with people who hear these hit songs played coast to coast, singing them at the top of their lungs. They LOVE this music. So yes, it's better and more compelling for them. Maybe not for you, but that's OK. We don't program to people who don't listen.

I absolutely listen, and my listening informs my opinions. And I stand by my position that 95% of stations are not tolerable to listen to. And that’s my opinion. I’m not arguing the merits or why. I’m just giving my opinion.

Yes, the majority disagrees with me. It doesn’t make my opinion less valid than yours.

Finally, I can give you dozens of examples of stations that had wide playlist variation in 1995. So please don’t make assumptions. The biggest difference between now and 1995 is that stations today have much tighter playlists. The playlists are so tight that I can barely stand listening to them. again, my opinion. We have the right to disagree.

 

[ScottBurns]

Again, that is usually due to a different competitive array in each market. And, obviously there are lots of cases of stations that go early on some songs dropping them to recurrent when other more conservative stations are just warming them up.

Back in the 60's we all were amused by how WABC generally went on a song three, four and even five weeks after the earliest adopters.

And if you look at those same two markets - Miami and West Palm - today, you’d see nearly zero playlist variation between WLDI, WPOW, and WHYI.

 

[TheBigA]

I absolutely listen, and my listening informs my opinions. And I stand by my position that 95% of stations are not tolerable to listen to. And that’s my opinion. I’m not arguing the merits or why. I’m just giving my opinion.

That's your opinion, but it's based on mythology that this is something new. It's not. The playlists have always been tight at the stations that were popular. Limited playlists are why they were successful. And as I said, this wasn't strictly a radio thing, but it was done in collaboration with the record labels, who were the driving force behind the music.

 

[davideduardo]

Finally, I can give you dozens of examples of stations that had wide playlist variation in 1995. So please don’t make assumptions. The biggest difference between now and 1995 is that stations today have much tighter playlists. The playlists are so tight that I can barely stand listening to them. again, my opinion. We have the right to disagree.

A great deal of the blame for shorter playlists and/or slower playlist turnover can be attributed to the record labels. It is very hard to achieve a mass hit today that there are fewer usable releases for many formats.

I know of stations that have had to eliminate the "power" category for weeks or months many times in the last 3 or 4 years as there is nothing researching high enough and not enough good songs. So the songs are not as powerful and they stick around longer.

 

[Kelly A]

And I’ve said multiple times that this is my opinion, to which I’m entitled. I don’t claim to speak for anyone else. But I can tell you that many people on this board agree with me.

And I've read similar comments too here. A handful of armchair PD's also aren't indicative of the greater radio audience.

You’re talking about something different. There’s a ton of regional variation in this country. Classic Hits stations need not play the same songs across the entire country.

But Classic Hit's-music is researched and deemed as hits. Playing deep album tracks from the same artists or even classic albums, even occasionally, aren't playing the hits. To a listener who likes that style/vintage of music, Stairway to Heaven is just as much as hit to someone in Boise as it is to a listener in Syracuse.

Certain songs are far more popular in some regions than others.

So you're saying, in your example, some Classic Hits are more popular in some regions than other's? I'll buy that to an extent for pop and maybe Hot AC but that's about it.

nd while that is true, the fact that iHeart has invested in personalities outside of morning drive proves your point wrong. The PM drive shows in Philly and Boston are live and local.

I'm not sure, but I'm willing to bet they're live and local in other iHeart markets too. In your opinion, is that a problem?

 

[davideduardo]

And if you look at those same two markets - Miami and West Palm - today, you’d see nearly zero playlist variation between WLDI, WPOW, and WHYI.

Yet the ethnic composition of the two markets is hugely different. Power was very Hispanic targeted in its best years, and , going back before that, so was Y-100.

 

[TheBigA]

A great deal of the blame for shorter playlists and/or slower playlist turnover can be attributed to the record labels. It is very hard to achieve a mass hit today that there are fewer usable releases for many formats.

The whole idea of Top 40 radio was to create limited playlists. By putting a number on the size of the playlist, and making it a competition, where songs moved up the chart to get to #1, was all about limiting the size of the playlist in order to create impact and excitement. It still works that way today. People still love to follow the charts and listen to countdown shows. But it's all about focusing and limiting the number of songs you play. That's the difference between music and hit music.

 

[davideduardo]

The whole idea of Top 40 radio was to create limited playlists. By putting a number on the size of the playlist, and making it a competition, where songs moved up the chart to get to #1, was all about limiting the size of the playlist in order to create impact and excitement. It still works that way today. People still love to follow the charts and listen to countdown shows. But it's all about focusing and limiting the number of songs you play. That's the difference between music and hit music.

In fact, in the first decade or so of Top 40 stations did not play recurrents or gold. Once a song dropped out of the 30 to 40 songs on the playlist, it was gone forever.

In fact, one of the reasons why Art Laboe's Oldies but Goodies albums did so well is that those songs got no airplay and yet there was great demand. It was not until a few stations like WABC in the earlier 60's started playing "oldies" that the practice became more widespread.