Is TV Stealing Morning Drive Radio Shares?

[yugoidar]

Suddenly, the fact that artists/groups that were signed (but didn't necessarily have hits) aren't relevant to the conversation. Gee, silly me! I thought from the quote above you were challenging my claim that over 100 singles were released weekly back in the late 60s and early70s.

You're taking my quote out of context.

My quote was in response to this:

Quote from: SirRoxalot on May 24, 2010, 10:57:21 AM

I have no idea where you get "amateur hour on the radio". Making stuff up doesn't enhance your point. As far as sifting through all the new releases to find out what's worthy, that USED TO BE WHAT RADIO STATIONS DID.

The fact is that radio stations didn't sort through all artists from all genres on all labels to decide what to play. That's what my comment was about. So telling me that there were hundreds of artists signed is irrelevant.

Really? Seems pretty clear to me who you were responding to. From earlier in this thread:

Quote from: yugoidar on May 24, 2010, 07:51:37 PM

"I don't know when your "old days" were, but back in the late 60s and early 70s - the record industry was releasing anywhere from 100 to 150 new singles a week".

Quote from: TheBigA on May 24, 2010, 08:29:43 PM

"Oh come on. I'd like to see that in print somewhere. There weren't that many artists signed total. Large rosters weren't done back then. Large rosters cost money. And there were only six genres. Compare the Grammy categories then and now".

 

[TheBigA]

I'd still like the figure of 100-150 new singles a week authenticated in some way. Claude Hall couldn't do it.

 

[yugoidar]

ha ha ha hah...No doubt about it, you are the Big A!

 

[SirRoxalot]

Let's make it simple. Grab your Whitburn collection, check out a particular year, and see how many singles are listed. Divide by 52.

PS - Remember, these are only the songs that hit the Top 100. Not even the Top 200. Or the artists who were signed and didn't chart nationally, which leaves out regional hits. In fact, it would be reasonable to take whatever results you got from step one, and multiply by a whatever number seems that you think will make your case. And, for TheBigA, negative multipliers don't count - no matter how badly you want to be right all the time.

I prefer to rely on the memories of the guys who were IN THE BUSINESS at the time.

 

[TheBigA]

Let's make it simple. Grab your Whitburn collection, check out a particular year, and see how many singles are listed. Divide by 52.

The statement was that 100-150 singles a week were released. Not how many singles were added or charted. I'm sure lots of singles were released and were not added, thus didn't chart.

Songs stayed in the chart for an average of 12-14 weeks, but some were in for a week and dropped out. Others stayed in for 30 weeks. This is not a figure that we can extrapolate from Whitburn.

I prefer to rely on the memories of the guys who were IN THE BUSINESS at the time.

How do you know I wasn't? Would you believe David Gleason?

 

[Mike Sheridan]

"O Brother Where Art Thou" soundtrack. Huge sales, no airplay. Country stations stayed away from it. This was a BIG story. Where were you?

 

[Radknowski]

What about all those songs that were "Bubbling Under?" At my small-medium market AM station in PA, we received a dozen records a day and in retrospect, played way too many stiffs. (But we sounded good because the jocks were good, the jingles were good, the audio was great, the local news was solid and the sales staff could sell ice to an Eskimo.) If, as SirRox notes, you apply Whitburn and Big A notes, include songs that didn't chart are included, it would seem to underscore the notion that there were hundreds of songs released and promoted each week. This seems to be one of the motivators for the "Stiffs" thread that seems to have endured more than a year.

 

[heydaybegone]

(Radnowski)

Touche'

That's all

(this thread has moved so far off topic...but F it :

 

[chas108]

True Heyday, but a few posts back you hit the problem, ok, we radio guys see it as a problem, the public simply sees it as having more choices for their entertainment and information.

I believe it can all be boiled down to two words: emotional connection.

40 years ago we had radio, TV, recorded media (records/8-tracks/cassettes), newspapers. You could go to the movies or theater. We had far fewer choices. Plus 40 years ago, FM was just an awakening giant...and it was before the days of move-ins, Docket 80/90 and all the other FCC crap that enabled the current clogging of the airwaves.

Most radio was doing its job well enough that the emotional connection lay there with radio...and therefore could survive the perceived/real (you decide) threats of the Walkman and other portable devices as they came to prominence.

Today we have a perfect storm...radio revenues and salaries, in real dollars, have been eroding for years as competition has increased just within the medium. (compounded in the Northeast by the loss of population and market size) Add to that all the media access we have from our cell phones to wi-fi...and here we are.

One thing remains the same: whoever/whatever makes the best emotional connection wins. Be it your iPod, iPad, Laptop, Desktop, TV, Nobex/iHeart app, or live, local, entertaining radio. Whether you embrace it for its entertainment value, ease of information or portability.

 

[TheBigA]

"O Brother Where Art Thou" soundtrack. Huge sales, no airplay. Country stations stayed away from it. This was a BIG story. Where were you?

It had something better than radio: A hit movie starring George Clooney.

 

[chas108]

And it is forever Country Radio's shame that...well, I admit it...we didn't know what to do with it.

Had it come out ten years earlier...or even a couple years later, it would've stood a much better chance at airplay. But in those pre-9/11 days, the format had become so pop that it was hurting male numbers...and the corresponding national automotive/beer buys.

When the towers fell...Country Radio was uniquely qualified to play relevant product that, combined with our renewed patriotism, automatically moved the format back in a more traditional direction. Within a year, The Dixie Chicks would "test out the wazoo" with the very traditional "Long Time Gone", "Landslide", and "Travelin' Soldier"...which was climbing when Natalie committed careericide in March '03. "Man Of Constant Sorrow" would've done better had it (and the movie) come out then.

 

[heydaybegone]

When the towers fell...Country Radio was uniquely qualified to play relevant product that, combined with our renewed patriotism, automatically moved the format back in a more traditional direction.

Nice call!...and not mentioned is Lee Greenwood's God Bless the USA which dominated every venue, everywhere (unless I'm mistaken)

HDBG

 

[Mike Sheridan]

chas108 thanks for the very thoughtful post.

Clearly what Country Radio should have done was to play it! Radio stations live in fear of tune outs so they are afraid to do things to make us want to tune in. This movie was happening, it was topical. Even people who don't like country music liked "Man of Constant Sorrow".

You missed it which is not a big deal....But all of Country radio missed it? That's messed up.

 

[TheBigA]

Clearly what Country Radio should have done was to play it! Radio stations live in fear of tune outs so they are afraid to do things to make us want to tune in.

That's your opinion. At the time, some in country radio wondered if they missed a hit. So they commissioned several independent studies and found out that the audience was very divided about the song. Those who liked it typically didn't like a lot of what was on country radio. Those who liked the music on country radio were strongly opposed to the song. So they went with what the audience wanted. The audience has made its mind up. It's like the Dixie Chicks. Just because they want a bunch of Grammy Awards doesn't mean you ignore your audience and play their music. You can try and force your music on them, or you can listen to what they say. In this case, country radio listened to their audience. That's why country radio is one of the most successful formats on OTA radio. They listen to their audience.

The fact is that SOME country stations played the song. It peaked at #34 in the airplay charts. But the point is that it was a divisive song that alienated a portion of the audience. This song was an example of local radio station decision making in action. It was popular in certain regions, and extremely unpopular in others. The only songs that get into the Top 20 are those that achieve a level of consensus. Songs on the edge aren't likely to achieve consensus. This was clearly a song on the edge. The fact that the soundtrack to a popular movie sold albums doesn't mean you ignore what the local audience wants to hear. That's why you have local program directors.

 

[Element9]

So which radio stations are running syndication between 5AM and 9AM? I mean, other than NPR?

If you lived anywhere near Buffalo or took time to check the stations' websites, you would know. Much is expected of you. After all, you are the Big A.

 

[chas108]

Clearly what Country Radio should have done was to play it! Radio stations live in fear of tune outs so they are afraid to do things to make us want to tune in.

That's your opinion. At the time, some in country radio wondered if they missed a hit. So they commissioned several independent studies and found out that the audience was very divided about the song. Those who liked it typically didn't like a lot of what was on country radio. Those who liked the music on country radio were strongly opposed to the song. So they went with what the audience wanted. The audience has made its mind up. It's like the Dixie Chicks. Just because they want a bunch of Grammy Awards doesn't mean you ignore your audience and play their music. You can try and force your music on them, or you can listen to what they say. In this case, country radio listened to their audience. That's why country radio is one of the most successful formats on OTA radio. They listen to their audience.

The fact is that SOME country stations played the song. It peaked at #34 in the airplay charts. But the point is that it was a divisive song that alienated a portion of the audience. This song was an example of local radio station decision making in action. It was popular in certain regions, and extremely unpopular in others. The only songs that get into the Top 20 are those that achieve a level of consensus. Songs on the edge aren't likely to achieve consensus. This was clearly a song on the edge. The fact that the soundtrack to a popular movie sold albums doesn't mean you ignore what the local audience wants to hear. That's why you have local program directors.

Our station has finally re-added some of the Chicks' old hits...and with each auditorium test, those titles still show up.

As for "Man Of Constant Sorrow", it's true that some stations tried it. Given the visibility and buzz over the movie, it would have been nice to see more of the R&R and Monitor panels (at least the ones with local callout) at least try it...play it as a novelty in morning drive and try it in a "Make It or Break It" night time feature. To me, that at least acknowledges the pop culture phenomenon without "forc(ing) your music on them".

A current equivalent may well be what does CHR do with the music from "Glee"?

 

[TheBigA]

Given the visibility and buzz over the movie, it would have been nice to see more of the R&R and Monitor panels (at least the ones with local callout) at least try it...

I think they did. It was a regional hit in some markets that tend to like this kind of stuff. That's how it got to #34 in the charts. A Top 10 song requires all reporters to play the same song in heavy, which is five times a day. This was a novelty that got a spin here or there, usually in off-peak hours. I think a lot of people overplay the "buzz" over the movie. There was more buzz for "I Walk The Line" and I didn't see a whole lot of radio stations dig out their old Johnny Cash records.

Clearly, the "Glee" thing is reaching far more people. Same with Idol. A hit weekly TV show can easily cume hundreds of millions of people. Unless people see the movie multiple times, it only gets one impression.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

Our station has finally re-added some of the Chicks' old hits...and with each auditorium test, those titles still show up.

As for "Man Of Constant Sorrow", it's true that some stations tried it. Given the visibility and buzz over the movie, it would have been nice to see more of the R&R and Monitor panels (at least the ones with local callout) at least try it...play it as a novelty in morning drive and try it in a "Make It or Break It" night time feature. To me, that at least acknowledges the pop culture phenomenon without "forc(ing) your music on them".

A current equivalent may well be what does CHR do with the music from "Glee"?

Yes, I like this idea. Topical is good. What happened to people on the radio who actually talk about the music? The music on "Glee" is certainly worthy of a few spins in my opinion.

 

[TheBigA]

The music on "Glee" is certainly worthy of a few spins in my opinion.

Why should radio talk about what's on TV? Isn't that encouraging people to turn off radios and watch TV? That brings us back to the topic of this thread. There were a lot of radio stations that refused to carry radio spots for Sirius or XM. So now it's OK for radio to promote TV?

 

[cee]

So now it's OK for radio to promote TV?

Um, it's always been OK to talk about TV show on the radio -- if it's during the daytime and you're talking about prime time TV. It's pretty much assumed most people listening to radio during their work day will be most likely not listening to the radio and possibly watching TV after dinner. I was encouraged to do "what's on tv tonight" features on a mid-day show I did at a full service AM station many years ago. It's call relating to the audience's lifestyle.