• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Is TV Stealing Morning Drive Radio Shares?

cee said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's why so many radio stations, including those that haven't filed for bankruptcy or aren't owned by big corporations, are turning that time period over to syndicators, so to concentrate their resources in time periods when people are more predisposed to choose radio.

Personally if I worked for a station and did 7 to midnight (as I once did), and heard the afternoon drive guy promoting the network TV line-up, rather than my local show, I'd be pretty miffed.
 
Ok...your getting there...I like it!! :D

There is so much tune-age used on TV spots, shows, etc. Nothing wrong with a cross plug. (Can't give examples here, cause well...some somebody would pay consulting fees- argue that one?) But cross plug em!! Fair game if the dues are paid (hell, even if there not..you're not playing it!)... If your gonna lose...tie into the bootstraps of the winner.

I am NOT by any means promoting that this is the cure.... I saying that you take it a piece at a time (unless you have the bomb).

That's all, and thank you
 
Whoa, did this take an odd turn...

The original post by Mike Sheridan said:
Mike Sheridan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mike said "talk about the music", not "talk about the TV show". Paying attention to songs that are making waves on other media seems like a smart programming idea. Case in point, "Bang The Drum All Day" by Todd Rundgren. It was never a hit in its day, but it sure would sound good as a summertime song in the right format. It should at least get tested since it's been splashed all over by Carnival Cruise Lines lately. It absolutely works when it gets spun during a Friday Happy Hour.

As far as promoting network TV, there's a line to walk between acknowledging its impact on the audience, and telling people that the 7-midnight show isn't worth listening to. That's as bad as "putting the station on shuffle" and other iPod references, or bad-mouthing a competitor - thus reminding the listener that they have other choices.
 
Rox....rather than comment..I suggest "thought provoking". (even though I detest "music testing" as a cure all)

Indeed

HDBG
 
TheBigA said:
Mike Sheridan said:
The music on "Glee" is certainly worthy of a few spins in my opinion.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

I understand this line of thinking and I agree to a point. You know all the morning shows come on and just foam at the mouth about American Idol. It's an easy way to be topical, because you know everyone in the office is talking about it.

I dislike all forms of reality TV, it's cheap and contrived in my opinion and with all do respect for those who like that kind of thing. At least with Glee you have an entertaining story line and some well produced music. When I mentioned talking about the music I didn't really have this show in mind. I think even the 7-mid guy, could do a quick mention of the show if he wanted to. People do time shift and you can always see it on Hulu, so the time it's on doesn't really matter.
 
Time-shifting is big here, especially during good weather. I was listening to a couple of typical housewives deciding who should DVR what the other night because two programs that they both wanted to see were on air simultaneously. Neither one would watch either program in real time.

One other thing to keep in mind is that WNY has a LOT of people working 2nd & 3rd shift. Time-shifting is a way of life for TV. They rely on radio as a hands-off entertainment option, and expect (vainly, in many cases) that the radio station will keep them informed if a major news event crops up. I guess that if it merits EAS notification, it MIGHT make the airwaves on the unattended stations in the area...
 

"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.

Today there are many more genres, and many more releases in each genre. And most of them are crap. As I said, no A&R. No one is being selective. They're just throwing spaghetti at the wall".


As requested - Here's a link to Billboard's March 14, 1970 edition.

http://books.google.com/books?id=NS...ce=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Scroll down to Page 64 and at the top right, you'll see they reviewed 198 singles that week and 130 the previous week.

Now what?
 
yugoidar said:
Scroll down to Page 64 and at the top right, you'll see they reviewed 198 singles that week and 130 the previous week.
Click to expand...

I saw the notation at the top of the page, but I didn't see the 198 single reviews. I just saw the "spotlights." I think that's an additive thing. What I wanted to see is actual release dates, because I still question that there were 198 singles released in a week.

Then I'd like to see a similar compendium for today. Because as I said in my original quote, today anyone can be a record label and anyone can release a single, so there could be 500 or 1000 singles released a week now. Maybe more, depending on how you define "release." There is no A&R anymore, and music is just being thrown at radio stations with no promotion or artist development. There was a lot of that in 1970 too, as can be seen by some of the artists on that page. They predicted that Stan Hitchcock's "Call Me Gone" would go Top 20. I have Joel Whitburn's book, and it never made the Top 50. Hitchcock had only one hit: Honey I'm Home.
 
"I saw the notation at the top of the page, but I didn't see the 198 single reviews. I just saw the "spotlights." I think that's an additive thing. What I wanted to see is actual release dates, because I still question that there were 198 singles released in a week".
_______________________________________________________

Just can't admit you're wrong, huh? I understand, you're the Big A!
 
yugoidar said:
Just can't admit you're wrong, huh? I understand, you're the Big A!
Click to expand...

I don't see this as a competition. You obviously do.

I'm looking for a point of comparison. I know what I see in terms of releases today, and it's a lot more than 198, if you include all genres, as Billboard did in 1970.

I stand by what I said. Today there are more genres and more releases. Probably more than any single publication can track.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom