Interesting programming...

[CanadianCHR]

This topic became a hot one in another thread that had little to do with what we were talking about, so I thought I'd move it over here, and get your opinon on this....

How's this for interesting programming...

Canadian quotas...

All Canadian stations must play 35% Canadian music. 6a-6p MUST be atleast 35% Canadian (so you can't stuff it all between 10p and 5a), and the entire broadcast week must be 35% Canadian. Programming CHR has been made easier in the last 4-5 years with artsists like Nelly Furtado, Avril, Finger Eleven, Nickelback and more... We usually try and play about 25% in the morning show, and even out the quota through the day.

Where it becomes a real challenge to program CHR in 2 Canadian markets (Ottawa & Montreal), where stations can only play up to 49% hits! Reason being: the markets are made up of french stations that must play no less than 65% french music- which even the french listeners can't stand! So the CRTC has leveled the playing field, by telling us that our broadcast week can't exceed 49% hits, so we won't take all the french listeners in the market. Now try programming a CHR station that can't play 51% of the hits out there!!

In our case we MUST rely partially on our strong recurrents, along with also forecasting what we think will convert into a hit, and spin them ASAP to maximize our non-hit plays. And lastly, some of our playlist is made up of records that you'll never see on a CHR chart. It has it's pros and cons... While we can never fully be a true CHR, we sound different than any other CHRs in North America who's playlists are nothing but Billboard's Top 40 list..

"Hits" for us are defined as a song that has entered the Top 40 on Billboard Hot 100, and Top 40 on our Canadian national airplay charts.

Montreal and Ottawa CHRs: Hot899 Ottawa, and MIX 96 Montreal (HAC/CHR)

Your thoughts... (other than the stupidity of it all! ha!)

 

[whit979]

I dunno...IMO, Canadian radio's reliance on Canadian artists has probably helped to boost their popularity in the U.S. and worldwide. Not that Nelly Furtado, Nickelback and Avril aren't good on their own...but Canadian radio has probably been a big catalyst for their careers.

 

[RadioMahn]

I dunno...IMO, Canadian radio's reliance on Canadian artists has probably helped to boost their popularity in the U.S. and worldwide. Not that Nelly Furtado, Nickelback and Avril aren't good on their own...but Canadian radio has probably been a big catalyst for their careers.

So this is government mandated stardom?

We American programmers think we have a tough fight with new media such as Ipods, satellite radio, internet and mp3 cell phones. Canadian radio can't play what listeners really want to hear, so I would think new media is being used even more north of the border than here. Has Canadian radio listening eroded more than U.S. listening because of this?

Live free or die

 

[CanadianCHR]

I dunno...IMO, Canadian radio's reliance on Canadian artists has probably helped to boost their popularity in the U.S. and worldwide. Not that Nelly Furtado, Nickelback and Avril aren't good on their own...but Canadian radio has probably been a big catalyst for their careers.

So this is government mandated stardom?

We American programmers think we have a tough fight with new media such as Ipods, satellite radio, internet and mp3 cell phones. Canadian radio can't play what listeners really want to hear, so I would think new media is being used even more north of the border than here. Has Canadian radio listening eroded more than U.S. listening because of this?

Live free or die

You've nailed it. Extremely hard for us to compete with new media with all our restrictions... Doesn't look like it's eroded more than US though... We fight hard to keep 'em... Always live, always local... But certainly listenership has dropped through the years..

 

[whit979]

True, however: An argument could also be made that American CHR stations are missing out on other CHR music around the world, because American pop radio primarily focuses on American artists. We're not told to...we just do because we're in America. A lot of Americans are 'up in arms' about jobs being outsourced to other nations. Perhaps the Canadian government sees entertainment in a similar light. Why would they want to outsource the job of entertaining Canadians to another country? Wouldn't that put legitimate Canadian musicians and artists at a disadvantage?

Maybe that theory is a long shot...but nationalism is a big part of American radio too (the only difference is that we typically do it by choice).

 

[jcolletta275]

Here's my take on this: more and more listeners are finding out about international artists online and are using technology such as the Internet and iPods to those artists' advantage. That said, radio has made a conscious effort to ignore that fact, because of exactly what RadioMahn said: we, as an industry, see new technology as something to compete with, not work with (which is exactly the wrong way to see it). If we began opening our ears to what their listeners are listening to when they're not listening to the radio, we'd quickly realize that there are a lot more acts out there that are popular on our own turf already (in addition to those we've already been forced to play because too many people were saying "Have you heard this band on MySpace? WHY AREN'T YOU PLAYING THEM?!").

Canada's government mandate is not only unreasonable, it's entirely unnecessary. So would any such mandate here be. Or anywhere else, for that matter. It's counterproductive and doesn't allow stations to air what their listeners truly want to hear. And the simple fact of it is: who cares what country an artist is from? If it's good music, it's going to make it!

By the way, the reason for Canada's mandate is twofold. One, Canadian radio stations along the border were getting blown away by American stations; and two, those Canadian stations that weren't (CKLW in Windsor/Detroit being the prime example) were targeting American audiences more than they were Canadians. It was a push for localism gone about in the entirely wrong (not to mention harmful) way. As for how it's affected ratings, it's an interesting situation, since like our own ratings, theirs are measured as percentages of the estimated listening population. But much like our own ratings, you can easily see that listenership isn't at all what it used to be. Take a look at Toronto's last book for a great example.

 

[MarcR]

Canada's government mandate is not only unreasonable, it's entirely unnecessary. So would any such mandate here be. Or anywhere else, for that matter. It's counterproductive and doesn't allow stations to air what their listeners truly want to hear. And the simple fact of it is: who cares what country an artist is from? *If it's good music, it's going to make it!*
[/quote]

Are you living in some alternate universe you might want to cue us in on or did you sleep through the whole payola scandal of the recent past? As one example, I think a record label paid a radio station $800,000 to add Limp Bizkit (not quite the epitome of good music) to their playlist back in the late '90s. And incidentally, I think Toronto, even with those supposedly burdensome mandates, is one of the better sounding radio markets in North America. It certainly beats what you can hear in New York City!

 

[jcolletta275]

Payola has nothing to do with a government mandate on national artists being played. Payola is illegal, a government mandate is unnecessary, neither should take place in radio. That's about where any linkage between the two ends.