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

[Music Lover]

Here's my anecdote:

A while back, I changed a "soft" station to an aggressive hit based format. Listeners by the thousands called the first weekend to complain.

At first, we had the whole office staff there to be nice to the former listeners. But the insults were so disgusting that I finally decided to quit listening to the calls and just let the phone ring. We later got lots of mail demanding an explanation. We decided not to answer the mail, either, as our explanation which was revenue-based, would only further upset those folks.

The soft format exited with a 4 share. The new format debuted with a 22.5 share just 20 days after going on the air, and later rose to a 33.5 in a 30+ station market.

Ah! Just like Oldies76 said. Complaints do fall on deaf ears.

But on the other hand, people always complain about limited and repeated playlists, but yet somehow, you guys never hear that. The public does though.

 

[davideduardo]

Ah! Just like Oldies76 said. Complaints do fall on deaf ears.

Just the offensive or irrational ones.

 

[Silkie]

It is never time to get rid of good old rock and roll.

 

[Music Lover]

I second what Avid Listener keeps saying around these forums. Those of us who like "soft" music aren't hung up on whether it was recorded this year, a decade ago, or four decades ago. We care about whether or not the songs sound pleasing to our ears.

 

[davideduardo]

I second what Avid Listener keeps saying around these forums. Those of us who like "soft" music aren't hung up on whether it was recorded this year, a decade ago, or four decades ago. We care about whether or not the songs sound pleasing to our ears.

Then you are exceptions.

Softer AC's appeal almost exclusively to an older demographic... predominantly over 35 and mostly in 40-54.

When asked, those listeners don't have any interest in the newer artists and are unfamiliar with the softer songs that got play on CHR or Hot AC stations because they don't listen to those stations.

Those few of you that would like the newer songs are not a significant enough audience group to sacrifice listening by core audiences for.

 

[Music Lover]

Then you are exceptions.

Softer AC's appeal almost exclusively to an older demographic... predominantly over 35 and mostly in 40-54.

When asked, those listeners don't have any interest in the newer artists and are unfamiliar with the softer songs that got play on CHR or Hot AC stations because they don't listen to those stations.

Those few of you that would like the newer songs are not a significant enough audience group to sacrifice listening by core audiences for.

First of all, I'm pushing 40, putting me in the demo for a Softer AC.

Second, I know plenty of people my age and older who are familiar with softer currents that have been on CHR or Hot AC even though they haven't listened to those formats. They get exposed to songs through TV or movies or through family and friends.

Only a very small handful of people I know around my age and older are so picky with music that they are uninterested in newer artists.

 

[Avid Listener]

Heck, listeners will tune out when "Brown Eyed Girl" comes on.

I "tune out" when I get home and pull into my driveway, regardless of what song is on.

In any event, what we see in music tests where "familiarity" is not asked is that new songs that could not have been heard by the participants score, always, well below neutral. In fact, we occasionally toss such songs into a test to aid in the elimination of participants who don't belong in the group and should not be counted.

As I thought. You cherry-pick your test audiences to ensure that you get the results you want. Anyone who doesn't agree with your preconceived notions "should not be counted".

How many music tests have you personally conducted? Or even attended?

Market research for products, I've been part of the team that conducted several tests, but never for songs. Testing for songs, I've conducted none and attended several. I've also been on testing panels for many different products and services.

Just not true at all. Some comedy, spoken word and novelties yes. But your big Top 40 hits from the past, the vast majority can be played today, JUST AT THE RIGHT TIME. That's the difference between you and I.

YOU are eliminating them all together, while many small stations on FM and AM's are giving them second look, successfully.

You should know that.

But knowing the right time requires a certain amount of intuition and empathy with the audience. Radio can't afford to hire such people, so they make do with people who can only read spreadsheets.

Just the offensive or irrational ones.

Or, in other words, the ones they disagree with.

Softer AC's appeal almost exclusively to an older demographic... predominantly over 35 and mostly in 40-54.

When asked, those listeners don't have any interest in the newer artists and are unfamiliar with the softer songs that got play on CHR or Hot AC stations because they don't listen to those stations.

But they would like those songs if they heard them on the stations that played to old songs, as long as they were good songs. Just being "soft" isn't enough. The problem is that it takes someone who actually knows the audience to predict whether or not a song will resonate with any particular audience. The suits at the record companies in the old days could do that. The old A&R men could tell from hearing a demo record if it would be a hit if recorded by a particular artists. Their track records weren't perfect, but the success percentages of the really good ones were what made their reputations as "the good ones".

It's amazing how many record industry suits could listen to an album and say with reasonable certainty which cuts would probably be hits as singles, but radio station suits have to see market testing. Maybe that's why so many failed record company executives switched careers and went into radio.

Second, I know plenty of people my age and older who are familiar with softer currents that have been on CHR or Hot AC even though they haven't listened to those formats. They get exposed to songs through TV or movies or through family and friends.

That's why getting booked on late night talk shows, or other alternative media to radio is so important to artists. There's an entire universe of outstanding musical artists out there that no one would know about if all they listened to was the radio.

 

[Music Lover]

Softer AC's appeal almost exclusively to an older demographic... predominantly over 35 and mostly in 40-54.

When asked, those listeners don't have any interest in the newer artists and are unfamiliar with the softer songs that got play on CHR or Hot AC stations because they don't listen to those stations.

But they would like those songs if they heard them on the stations that played to old songs, as long as they were good songs.

My mom is in her 70's and even she would be open to a mix like that of old and new. Even though she's a certain age, she's still very open-minded to new things. My dad is the opposite. He's not open to anything new unless it's someone singing standards. Most people I know their age, are more like my mom than my dad.

 

[davideduardo]

As I thought. You cherry-pick your test audiences to ensure that you get the results you want. Anyone who doesn't agree with your preconceived notions "should not be counted".

All research uses "cherry picked" respondents. The very term indicates "only the ones that are ripe and ready to be consumed".

In a music test, we select people who listen already to our station and, perhaps our more direct competitor or competitors. We don't select people who do not listen to any of those options, as the first purpose of a music test is to safeguard our existing audience and the second purpose is to expand it if possible.

Among the recruiting techniques used is to play "pods" of snippets of a group of songs that represent one of the styles of music we play. If a potential respondent does not like most of the pods "a lot" they don't participate because they will, under no circumstances, like the radio station.

Market research for products, I've been part of the team that conducted several tests, but never for songs. Testing for songs, I've conducted none and attended several. I've also been on testing panels for many different products and services.

So you have no experience in how a music test is recruited, how the songs for the test are decided on and how the results are interpreted. Yet you want to tell us that the way radio tests music is wrong.

But knowing the right time requires a certain amount of intuition and empathy with the audience. Radio can't afford to hire such people, so they make do with people who can only read spreadsheets.

Radio can afford to hire such people and they do. But those people also use tools to create programming that include all kinds of research. And if we see MScores that continuously show a particular song causes listeners to go away no matter what the surrounding context is, we stop playing it. In the case of all gold formats, currents and recurrents have that effect. So we don't play them.

Or, in other words, the ones they disagree with.

No, just the people who are offensive or think they are more deserving of hearing what they want than the rest of the audience. In other words, people like you and Oldies76.

But they would like those songs if they heard them on the stations that played to old songs, as long as they were good songs.

No, they would not. When interviewed in one-on-one or focus groups, they indicate that they select our gold based station because "I know all the songs" or "I can sing along with them" or some other indication that they expect "familiar favorites" when they tune in.

Just being "soft" isn't enough. The problem is that it takes someone who actually knows the audience to predict whether or not a song will resonate with any particular audience. The suits at the record companies in the old days could do that. The old A&R men could tell from hearing a demo record if it would be a hit if recorded by a particular artists. Their track records weren't perfect, but the success percentages of the really good ones were what made their reputations as "the good ones".

In the 50's and 60's a Top 40 station might receive 30 or more new songs a week. And even in the era when programmers had less information on what was rising and what was stiffing, all but two or three of those songs did nothing anywhere. That's about a 10% success rate to even get in a low chart position... and of those that charted, even fewer became real hits.

It's amazing how many record industry suits could listen to an album and say with reasonable certainty which cuts would probably be hits as singles, but radio station suits have to see market testing. Maybe that's why so many failed record company executives switched careers and went into radio.

Radio stations have never tested brand new songs. And even when we add a song that the record label is pushing, we don't know if it will be a positive for our listeners for several weeks at minimum. In the "good old days" it took that long to get sales results, and today it takes that long to get to the point where it is familiar enough to be tested in what is generically called "call out".

I know of lots of radio people who went into the record business, but can not recall any who started in music and moved to radio. A few, like Scott Shannon, spent a few years in music (at Casablanca) out of 50 years in radio.

But I do recall my music director at an LA station having a big argument with a major label's promotion head. The label was promoting a particular single, and she wanted to play a different cut. The label did not want to have us do that, but we did anyway. The song went on to be the artist's biggest hit ever.

I can think of may more instances where the label experts had no clue about what might be the hit so stations just skipped it or picked a cut on their own.

 

[davideduardo]

Only a very small handful of people I know around my age and older are so picky with music that they are uninterested in newer artists.

But you are forgetting that people who come to gold based stations expect familiarity. When they hear unfamiliar music, the station is basically breaking a promise of providing familiar favorites. When a station fails to live up to expectations, listeners leave.

In the major markets, we can track this with MScores if our station subscribes.... http://www.mediamonitors.com/services/mscore

We can see what happens over time as different songs are played in different times of the day and in different mixes with other songs. Unfamiliar songs get very negative MScores on gold based stations.

Your sample is a couple of other people you know... meaning they are likely to be of a similar lifestyle group. That's not viable research as it is simply anecdotal.

 

[JeffM]

This whole thing is starting to sound like the anoraks who hang around the vinyl shop here. (I've covered them elsewhere.) All we need now is for Mr. Lesley (sounds like a 70's hairdresser!) to show up and start ranting about "pencil neck geeks" in his usual Dixiefried English. That oughta make this complete, no?

 

[Music Lover]

But you are forgetting that people who come to gold based stations expect familiarity. When they hear unfamiliar music, the station is basically breaking a promise of providing familiar favorites. When a station fails to live up to expectations, listeners leave.

If the gold-based station changed completely from a song list like this:

Le Blanc & Carr - Falling
Savage Garden - Truly Madly Deeply
Bette Midler - Wind Beneath My Wings
Elton John - Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word
Stevie B - I'll Be By Your Side
Ambrosia - You're The Only Woman
The Eagles - Best Of My Love
REO Speedwagon - Can't Fight This Feeling
Bonnie Tyler - It's A Heartache
Ronnie Milsap - There's No Getting Over Me
Olivia Newton-John - Hopelessly Devoted To You
Foreigner - I Want To Know What Love Is
Cliff Richard - We Don't Talk Anymore
Michael Johnson - Bluer Than Blue
Art Garfunkel - Since I Don't Have You
Celine Dion - My Heart Will Go On
Mariah Carey - Visions Of Love
LeAnn Rimes - How Do I Live
Jim Brickman and Martina McBride - Valentine
Faith Hill - There You'll Be

to a song list like this:

Maroon 5 - Daylight
George Michael - Father Figure
Nickelback - How You Remind Me
Katy Perry - Teenage Dream
Kenny Loggins - Footloose
Aerosmith - Cryin'
Bon Jovi - Wanted Dead Or Alive
Prince - Kiss
Black Eyed Peas - I Gotta Feeling
Fun - Some Nights
Cee Lo Green - Forget You
Kelly Clarkson - Behind These Hazel Eyes
Shannon - Let The Music Play
Michael Jackson - Billie Jean
Carrie Underwood - Before He Cheats
Pink - Try
Eurthymics - Sweet Dreams Are Made Of This
T'Pau - Heart And Soul
Taylor Swift - Shake It Off
John Mellencamp - Hurts So Good

then I can understand (and sympathize with) the listener leaving. It's a huge change in texture of the station.

But we're just talking about a mix like this, only mixing in certain current songs that have a soft texture, which I very highly doubt would turn off a gold-based listener, and if it does, then that listener must be extremely picky:

Don McLean - Crying
Lonestar - Amazed
Carly Simon - Anticipation
Vanessa Williams - Save The Best For Last
One Direction - Story Of My Life
The Carpenters - Goodbye To Love
Adele - Someone Like You
Bee Gees - More Than A Woman
A Great Big World & Christina Aguilera - Say Something
Barbra Streisand - Guilty
Sade - The Sweetest Taboo
Lionel Richie - Hello
Pharrell Williams - Happy
Backstreet Boys - I Want It That Way
Josh Groban - You Raise Me Up
Enya - Only Time
Taylor Swift - Teardrops On My Guitar
Kelly Clarkson - A Moment Like This
Heart - Alone
Colbie Caillat - Bubbly

 

[K.M. Richards]

But on the other hand, people always complain about limited and repeated playlists, but yet somehow, you guys never hear that. The public does though.

People always complain about a lot of things. We care about what they DO, and we see how they behave every time we check the ratings.

Real world example coming up.

When my Albuquerque client flipped formats in May, we received a feedback e-mail from one listener who said he had listened to us since the changeover (about two days at that point) and that as long as we kept playing U2 he wouldn't listen and would go find a station that didn't.

We have 13 songs by U2 in the library, out of about 450 total titles. They happen to be a core artist to the format, which is 80s-focused.

So we heard from one listener ... but we also heard from dozens of others who were complimentary about the music. One even mentioned their favorite U2 song by title. Since the research matched up with the vast majority of comments received after launch, the U2 songs stayed in. In fact, we had 11 songs when we started, I dropped one because it wasn't fitting the overall feel of the station, and added two more that do. Right after Thanksgiving, we heard from that first listener again, and his entire message was: "When are you going to stop playing U2 like I asked?"

So what we have is a complainer, who threatens to stop listening ... and six months later, he's still listening. We don't care that he complained so much as we care that he either didn't intend to follow through on his threat or he couldn't find a station he liked better.

oldies76, you are the philosophical equivalent of that guy. You insist that we program for you specifically while the rest of the audience applauds what we are already programming. It's not going to happen, because in order for us to have all those listeners who listen and give us positive feedback, we do our research and play the songs that the majority of our target audience have consensus about liking. I will be the first to admit that we fail to play a number of songs which were lesser hits and are probably well-liked by some of the listeners. But if the research tells me more people don't want to hear that song than do ... it's off the playlist. No one (except those with broader musical interests) notices that some songs aren't being played, but they sure notice when a song they personally dislike does. And more often than not, they don't hang around to complain*, they're off looking elsewhere on the dial or switching to their iPod or a stream.

Is the research process perfect? No, it has a margin of error, just like everything else in the world. But the process has worked for many, many years. If it wasn't working, you would find stations flipping between formats much more frequently trying to find something that "clicks" with enough listeners to be salable. And those of us who program or consult radio stations wouldn't use a process that didn't have a high accuracy factor, because if we fail to deliver the audience we're not going to last long at our positions (a PD will get fired for too many bad books, a consultant will find his contract doesn't get renewed if the station doesn't get results from following his advice). That is why I infamously once said in one of the KRTH threads that the "armchair quarterbacks" who continually criticize "the suits" wouldn't last six months in the Program Director's chair. Programming completely by instinct, with no research, means you'll end up with a station that you like to listen to but which is constantly driving away listeners who don't have your precise musical tastes.

As for the question of the AC format still having viability, it probably does, but not in the same way it did when I programmed one of the early ACs in a smaller market from 1978 to 1981. That station was 65% currents and recurrents with most of the gold newer than 1970 ... basically top-40 minus the novelty songs, bubblegum, and hard rock. The next AC I was with was all "soft hits" and had a higher gold/current ratio. The 90s brought us "Hot AC" and "Modern AC" as options, and eventually "Rhythmic AC" and "Urban AC". I'm not even sure myself what constitutes Adult Contemporary anymore, given those variations. (I remember one focus group I oversaw in the early 2000s in which several people called the classic hits station in the market "AC" ... and it had no currents of any kind.)

What AC has to do is find the music mix that works for a particular market and not try to duplicate a success from a different one. Uh-oh, we're going to have to do more research, I guess.

(*-It has become my considered opinion after all these years that the vocal complainers are actually the least likely to go elsewhere, actually, based on the example given and similar other received comments at client stations.)

 

[davideduardo]

If the gold-based station changed completely from a song list like this:

Start with the fact that "Happy" is one of the very crispy-est songs right now, and the Groban and Swift and other "recurrents" balance the flavor way to much towards the present, that is not going to work. The Enya crowd is not the BSB crowd in most cases.

Of course, if you are targeting 25-54 because you actually want some revenue, things like Carpenters are real negatives.

What you have is a list that seems to sound nice, but is not actually appealing to any significant segment of the audience.

 

[Music Lover]

You missed my point entirely. Re-read it again.

And as far as the third list is concerned, it appeals to people who want to hear something relaxing and be able to listen with their kids without worrying about foul language or suggestive lyrics. It's "old-school" soft adult contemporary brought forward in time like my first board friend here, PassTheWord, has done with his online station:

Thanks for the mention, Musiclover! Glad to hear you're enjoying Lite 99. As you said, we do play the original version of the soft AC format. WLTB-DB is based on the original WLTB, Lite 99 FM here in Birmingham, which was on the air from 1985-88 at 99.5 (which is now country WZRR "Nash Icon 99-5"). We've brought WLTB-FM's format forward in time and added tracks that were "grafted"into the soft AC format in the early to mid 90's, as well as incorporating newer material. As many of you who listen to "old school" soft adult contemporary may remember, the format was primarily older-based soft rock ballads, with a few currents thrown in per hour to keep the format fresh, so we are adopting that same structure for WLTB Digital Radio. For example, we play John Legends "All of Me" "You and I" by One Direction and "A Thousand Years" by Christina Perri, just to name a few.

Quote came from this discussion: http://www.radiodiscussions.com/showthread.php?671221-Why-did-AC-stop-being-soft

 

[Music Lover]

And more often than not, they don't hang around to complain*, they're off looking elsewhere on the dial or switching to their iPod or a stream.

In my example above, when the first list switched textures to the second list, I initially complained, then went off elsewhere on the dial, finding the same thing had occurred with other former stations I liked, then switched to streams.

 

[Avid Listener]

So you have no experience in how a music test is recruited, how the songs for the test are decided on and how the results are interpreted. Yet you want to tell us that the way radio tests music is wrong.

The proof is in the pudding. Any research method that produces false data must be flawed. One need not know what the method is. All one needs is to see the results. If the results are flawed, then that proves that the research method is flawed.

But you are forgetting that people who come to gold based stations expect familiarity.

No, they are expecting GOOD MUSIC.

Real world example coming up.

Here's another real world example. In the early 2000's, Pittsburgh had two classic rock stations. We would listen to one or the other at work, it didn't matter which one. Occasionally, one of us would lament, "Oh no! Not that piece of <excrement> again! I'm sick of that that <cursed and destined to the netherworld> song, even though it used to be one of my favorites until the station ruined it", as they played one of the songs that we used to like but that they had burned out through over playing. So, we'd switch to the other one. Then one day, the #2 classic rock station switched to "Bob". It sucked big time. So, even when the #1 station would play the same songs they had ruined for us, we had nothing left to switch to. But we still ended up switching over to "Bob" when the #1 station would assault our ears with the 470th consecutive day playing "LaGrange". But then we'd end up switching back within 15 minutes or so, because "Bob" played too many really crappy songs.

In my example above, when the first list switched textures to the second list, I initially complained, then went off elsewhere on the dial, finding the same thing had occurred with other former stations I liked, then switched to streams.

And that takes us back to the core of threads like this one. Little by little, terrestrial radio is chasing people away from radio completely!

 

[gr8oldies]

Why don't any of you armchair PDs who know that everything radio is doing is wrong and all the research is wrong put your money where your mouth is and either try to become a major market PD or buy a station and prove it? Just walk in and say you don't believe in research, you don't need it because you "just know". Play your 10,000 B sides, become number one in all demographics and make lots of money? You don't think if doing it your way would result in ratings and sales orders coming in the door radio stations wouldn't already be doing it?

 

[Music Lover]

I've noticed that some of these old-school soft adult contemporary stations are set up on HD channels. What is an HD channel?

This station is an example. It's currently love songs 24/7.

http://tunein.com/radio/KQID-HD2-931-s227589/
http://www.streamlicensing.com/play/player.php?sid=3076&stream_id=5579
http://www.streamlicensing.com/directory/index.cgi?sid=3076
http://s4.streammonster.com:8471/played.html

 

[davideduardo]

I've noticed that some of these old-school soft adult contemporary stations are set up on HD channels. What is an HD channel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Radio