It's 2015! Time to get rid of the '70s.

[K.M. Richards]

When the people who agree with each other all talk together in one forum, and the people who disagree with them all talk together on another forum, that's not "discussion". That's chat rooms.

And when threads predictably deteriorate into ...
Fan: "Why is ... (area of concern)?"
Pro: "Because ... (explanation of industry practice)"
Fan: "You're wrong ... (gives opinion)"
Pro: "The reason why that isn't the case is ... (more industry facts)"
Fan: "That doesn't matter, I'm still right because ... (restates opinion)"

... that's not "discussion", that's a refusal to accept the answers to the questions you pose.

 

[Music Lover]

If there were "music fan" categories here on RD, would you leave the professionals alone except to pop in when you have a question about the programming process

Absolutely!

The reason I've argued with the pros is because I'm tired of all the "it can't be done" answers they give. I take the Little Engine That Could stance.

 

[John Gallagher]

Kinda surprised this redundant discussion (argument) has gone on for how long...years?

 

[oldies76]

The thread will end when you finally have the courtesy and common sense to stop posting rehashes of everything you have said before.

And you can also ignore. Better said than done. And since the mods have designated the radio formats section for enthusiasts and hobbyists as well, good luck seeing us leave anytime soon. Enjoy!

 

[Johnny Diablo]

Absolutely!

The reason I've argued with the pros is because I'm tired of all the "it can't be done" answers they give. I take the Little Engine That Could stance.

In other words, you take a stance based on a fictional story that only a small child might believe.

 

[oldies76]

... that's not "discussion", that's a refusal to accept the answers to the questions you pose.

So the "pros" are always right and the fans are always wrong......

See post #466 quoted by our moderator: "So the "right" way is to attract the largest audience possible in any given moment. For some people, doing radio "right" means being creative, and playing a larger variety. Neither is really more "right" than the other.. it just depends on what the MAIN objective is"

 

[davideduardo]

So the "pros" are always right and the fans are always wrong......

The pros consult in very effective manner with the group of fans that can make a station successful.

See post #466 quoted by our moderator: "So the "right" way is to attract the largest audience possible in any given moment. For some people, doing radio "right" means being creative, and playing a larger variety. Neither is really more "right" than the other.. it just depends on what the MAIN objective is "

Long playlists and the kinds of stuff you suggest are not generally successful for anything but hobbyist stations, and are thus are not "right" for the vast, immense and overwhelming majority.

Music Lover has the right idea... find the hobbyist streams that play the kinds of music you like, and bookmark several of them and recommend them to the other like-minded "music fans".

 

[TheBigA]

Music Lover has the right idea... find the hobbyist streams that play the kinds of music you like, and bookmark several of them and recommend them to the other like-minded "music fans".

And contribute money whenever they ask.

 

[K.M. Richards]

So the "pros" are always right and the fans are always wrong......

Amazingly, you still have that mindset.

It is not a question of "right" or "wrong", although you have often interpreted what the professionals have said that way.

It is a question of how stations in competitive markets have to program in order to get a large enough slice of the pie (listening audience) to attract agency advertising buys and get results for local advertisers as well. The stations you have consistently highlighted as examples that "it doesn't have to be that way" are all in smaller markets that either are unrated or the station has little or no competition in its chosen format, so they don't need to use the same methodologies -- including the word you dread the most, "research" -- that the large stations do. Which is just as well, because under those circumstances they could not afford to do music testing, etc.

Internet stations are similar to small market and unrated market stations. They can't afford research, but they also don't attract enough listeners individually to warrant it. As has been stated before, internet streams are operated by music enthusiasts like yourself for whom terrestrial radio no longer has an appeal. And that's perfectly fine by me, since I'd never be able to make you happy anyway and at least that stream gives you self-satisfaction. The number of people who listen to "pure" streams (not just a broadcast station online) are not enough, in total, to make any dent in the overall ratings. This is provable by the fact that there are very few streams that make it into the ratings book, and those that do are invariably simulcasts of HD-2 channels and counted along with their originating station.

Now, let me bring up WOGL before you do. They are an example of how research and music testing can result in a broader playlist, for one simple reason. Their listeners are unique to their market. If I dropped KRTH's playlist onto WOGL it would fail ... not because of the number of titles but because those aren't the songs Philadelphia's listeners would consider their favorites. That is also why WOGL's playlist would not work on KRTH.

There is one context in which I will use the word "right", and that is: Programmers know when they get it "right" when the numbers go up or remain within the margin of error. Even a downward trend can be "right" if all the other stations that share listeners are similarly trending. That's why we don't panic over minor shifts in the ratings.

I don't have a problem with you liking a broader spectrum of music than is programmed on the air today. I have an incredibly vast personal music library that includes songs that never charted in the U.S., album cuts, low-charting singles, and the hits. And they are from very diverse genres as well; it is not uncommon for my MP3 player to go from "Chattanooga Choo-Choo" by Glenn Miller to Jim Capaldi's version of "Love Hurts" followed by Gerry Rafferty and "Baker Street", wrapped up with "Dreadlock Holiday" by 10cc. However, your personal likes do not make you an expert on radio programming, and that is where I have to draw the line.

Simply repeating "the pros are wrong, the fans are right" does not make it so. We do this for a living. You do not.

 

[davideduardo]

Amazingly, you still have that mindset.

It is not a question of "right" or "wrong", although you have often interpreted what the professionals have said that way.

It is a question of how stations in competitive markets have to program in order to get a large enough slice of the pie (listening audience) to attract agency advertising buys and get results for local advertisers as well. The stations you have consistently highlighted as examples that "it doesn't have to be that way" are all in smaller markets that either are unrated or the station has little or no competition in its chosen format, so they don't need to use the same methodologies -- including the word you dread the most, "research" -- that the large stations do. Which is just as well, because under those circumstances they could not afford to do music testing, etc.

Internet stations are similar to small market and unrated market stations. They can't afford research, but they also don't attract enough listeners individually to warrant it. As has been stated before, internet streams are operated by music enthusiasts like yourself for whom terrestrial radio no longer has an appeal. And that's perfectly fine by me, since I'd never be able to make you happy anyway and at least that stream gives you self-satisfaction. The number of people who listen to "pure" streams (not just a broadcast station online) are not enough, in total, to make any dent in the overall ratings. This is provable by the fact that there are very few streams that make it into the ratings book, and those that do are invariably simulcasts of HD-2 channels and counted along with their originating station.

Now, let me bring up WOGL before you do. They are an example of how research and music testing can result in a broader playlist, for one simple reason. Their listeners are unique to their market. If I dropped KRTH's playlist onto WOGL it would fail ... not because of the number of titles but because those aren't the songs Philadelphia's listeners would consider their favorites. That is also why WOGL's playlist would not work on KRTH.

There is one context in which I will use the word "right", and that is: Programmers know when they get it "right" when the numbers go up or remain within the margin of error. Even a downward trend can be "right" if all the other stations that share listeners are similarly trending. That's why we don't panic over minor shifts in the ratings.

I don't have a problem with you liking a broader spectrum of music than is programmed on the air today. I have an incredibly vast personal music library that includes songs that never charted in the U.S., album cuts, low-charting singles, and the hits. And they are from very diverse genres as well; it is not uncommon for my MP3 player to go from "Chattanooga Choo-Choo" by Glenn Miller to Jim Capaldi's version of "Love Hurts" followed by Gerry Rafferty and "Baker Street", wrapped up with "Dreadlock Holiday" by 10cc. However, your personal likes do not make you an expert on radio programming, and that is where I have to draw the line.

Simply repeating "the pros are wrong, the fans are right" does not make it so. We do this for a living. You do not.

Amen. If this thread should were to be locked, this post sums it all up.

 

[John Gallagher]

Where's the Radio Discussions like button...

 

[Music Lover]

And contribute money whenever they ask.

Contribute money if you can afford it.

 

[oldies76]

It is not a question of "right" or "wrong", although you have often interpreted what the professionals have said that way.

It is a question of how stations in competitive markets have to program in order to get a large enough slice of the pie (listening audience) to attract agency advertising buys and get results for local advertisers as well. The stations you have consistently highlighted as examples that "it doesn't have to be that way" are all in smaller markets that either are unrated or the station has little or no competition in its chosen format, so they don't need to use the same methodologies -- including the word you dread the most, "research" -- that the large stations do. Which is just as well, because under those circumstances they could not afford to do music testing, etc.

Internet stations are similar to small market and unrated market stations. They can't afford research, but they also don't attract enough listeners individually to warrant it. As has been stated before, internet streams are operated by music enthusiasts like yourself for whom terrestrial radio no longer has an appeal. And that's perfectly fine by me, since I'd never be able to make you happy anyway and at least that stream gives you self-satisfaction. The number of people who listen to "pure" streams (not just a broadcast station online) are not enough, in total, to make any dent in the overall ratings. This is provable by the fact that there are very few streams that make it into the ratings book, and those that do are invariably simulcasts of HD-2 channels and counted along with their originating station.

Now, let me bring up WOGL before you do. They are an example of how research and music testing can result in a broader playlist, for one simple reason. Their listeners are unique to their market. If I dropped KRTH's playlist onto WOGL it would fail ... not because of the number of titles but because those aren't the songs Philadelphia's listeners would consider their favorites. That is also why WOGL's playlist would not work on KRTH.

There is one context in which I will use the word "right", and that is: Programmers know when they get it "right" when the numbers go up or remain within the margin of error. Even a downward trend can be "right" if all the other stations that share listeners are similarly trending. That's why we don't panic over minor shifts in the ratings.

I don't have a problem with you liking a broader spectrum of music than is programmed on the air today. I have an incredibly vast personal music library that includes songs that never charted in the U.S., album cuts, low-charting singles, and the hits. And they are from very diverse genres as well; it is not uncommon for my MP3 player to go from "Chattanooga Choo-Choo" by Glenn Miller to Jim Capaldi's version of "Love Hurts" followed by Gerry Rafferty and "Baker Street", wrapped up with "Dreadlock Holiday" by 10cc. However, your personal likes do not make you an expert on radio programming, and that is where I have to draw the line.

Simply repeating "the pros are wrong, the fans are right" does not make it so. We do this for a living.

KM, You've summed it up nicely and well written.
Thank You.

Now back to KWRP Cruisin' AM 690 / 100.3
http://tunein.com/radio/Cruisin-KWRP-690-s35056/

Take a listen for sake of comparison.

 

[landtuna]

Simply repeating "the pros are wrong, the fans are right" does not make it so. We do this for a living. You do not.

With all due respect if, as you say, the pros are the experts then:

...there wouldn't be any failing stations
...PD's job security wouldn't be worse than college athletic coaches
...station flipping wouldn't be a weekly occurance

 

[davideduardo]

Take a listen for sake of comparison.

I did.

Simplified reaction:

1/3 songs I never liked or songs I am minimally familiar with and feel no bond with.
1/3 songs I may have liked back then, but do not ever want to hear again.
1/3 songs that I'd enjoy hearing, although quite a few of those I would not like to hear again until 2016.

I played most of those songs as currents, so it's hardly an "out of demo" or "not my life experience" situation.

 

[davideduardo]

With all due respect if, as you say, the pros are the experts then:

...there wouldn't be any failing stations
...PD's job security wouldn't be worse than college athletic coaches
...station flipping wouldn't be a weekly occurance

Not all PDs are as good as others, so expecting no failed stations is disingenuous.

Station fails may be due to a poor PD, unexpected reaction by competitors, changing tastes, aging demos, new ownership preferences, bad signals and a variety of other reasons.

In any given market, station format changes are not that frequent... although following Docket 80-90 (which allowed move-ins and created rimshots galore) the many marginal-signal stations tend to flip more often.

PD job security is no worse than any other creative position in the media. As often as not, PDs change jobs to move to better, bigger and more financially rewarding positions.

 

[landtuna]

Not all PDs are as good as others, so expecting no failed stations is disingenuous.

How long does it take for a novice PD to become an "expert"? Once established, I would not expect an "expert" to fail yet considering the number of flippers (and PD's "excused") I think it happens far more often than one would expect.

Station fails may be due to a poor PD, unexpected reaction by competitors, changing tastes, aging demos, new ownership preferences, bad signals and a variety of other reasons.

Of course, but everything except the "poor PD" is relatively constant (excepting change of ownership).

In any given market, station format changes are not that frequent... although following Docket 80-90 (which allowed move-ins and created rimshots galore) the many marginal-signal stations tend to flip more often.

Perhaps not by market but overall many more than I would expect (unless owners have less knowledge than the poor PD).

PD job security is no worse than any other creative position in the media. As often as not, PDs change jobs to move to better, bigger and more financially rewarding positions.

With the lies expressed upon most anyone's dismissal from the media it is impossible to tell.

 

[Music Lover]

What about a lite AC stream like this one: http://www.radionomy.com/en/radio/amazinglitemusiccom/index
It tends to lean a little more heavily towards the softer stuff of today than other web-only lite AC's I've come across.
Could that work?

 

[Johnny Diablo]

With all due respect if, as you say, the pros are the experts then...

With all due respect, I've searched the length of this thread and I've never seen K.M. Richards say "the pros are the experts." In fact, prior to writing "your personal likes do not make you an expert on radio programming," I've not seen K.M. use the word "expert" at all. So...if you'd be so kind, please direct us to just who the "you" in your "as you say" is in reference to. Thank you.

 

[landtuna]

With all due respect, I've searched the length of this thread and I've never seen K.M. Richards say "the pros are the experts." In fact, prior to writing "your personal likes do not make you an expert on radio programming," I've not seen K.M. use the word "expert" at all. So...if you'd be so kind, please direct us to just who the "you" in your "as you say" is in reference to. Thank you.

I was referring to his statement that went something like "the pro's make a living, not you". And it was not my intent to demean his opinion but to present an alternative view that every PD got started somewhere and a significant number of them came up with ideas that were new and untried at the time. The Establishment will always claim, because they are the Establishment, they are also right and have the only answers. They will always be wrong. They may have some of the answers and they may have temporary answers but they are not privy to the only answers. It was not a personal criticism but rather an industry one.