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

[JeffM]

Because I'm not an idiot. If I had the resources to buy a radio station, I'd use them to buy a bar/restaurant. If I'm going to invest my money in something, it'll be something I love doing.

Wouldn't you love to hear him argue with his customers over what's in the juke box?

 

[TheBigA]

It's been this way for decades. The only thing that may shuffle the lists are demographic shifts over the years. I rest my case.

Because that's what radio is. You're trying to turn a hamburger into something else because you want it to be something else. That's not going to happen.

Theses stations are very successful doing what they do. There are large groups of people who are very happy and satisfied with the programming. There is a small handful who want something else. For them, there are lots of other devices.

 

[davideduardo]

Or sitting in some cubicle or on a bench in an airport terminal, on a laptop all day long!

I hear that many people are fleeing the cold weather by sitting in airports. Is that your experience and is that what you are referring to?

 

[davideduardo]

You're on a roll here.....nice.

Been watching some of those Schoolhouse Rock reruns lately?

No, I am just tired of seeing your posts repeating the same totally wrong ideas about radio... ideas that will utterly destroy radio stations and that never work... and refusing to accept that there are many, many competent programmers with enormous experience in creating well programmed, salable stations for their owners without your help.

 

[Avid Listener]

With a goldmine of classic hits out there (thousands of hit singles from the late 1960's through the 80's that are just in the top 20), it's really a wonder and a Sherlock Holmes mystery as to why only 400 or so are ever chosen at any given time, and it's usually the same titles (the cores, with a few extras thrown in). It's been this way for decades. The only thing that may shuffle the lists are demographic shifts over the years. I rest my case.

As Eduardo pointed out, either in this thread or another one, it's the stations that pick which songs they'll test. So how do we mere listeners know that they tin-eared suits running any vintage format radio station only submit the same handful of songs for testing?

How can any test audience possibly listen to the thousands of songs out there? One of the local classic rock stations I listened to in Pittsburgh once, as a stunt, played their entire music library in alphabetical order. This "A to Z" stunt lasted well over a week, with no song repeated. We're talking around ten days of continuous classic rock songs played 24/7. If the songs' average length was four minutes, that's around 3,600 songs.

So how does a radio station test thousands of songs to find the ones that work? Based on what goes on the air based on those tests, it appears that not many songs even get tested. Then the suits hide behind the fiction "we only play what tests well". There's no way on God's green earth that any radio station can have adequately and accurately tested over 3,000 songs to find the puny little 300 song playlists that they insist are all that we want to hear.

They claim that stations do better with tight playlists, but anyone with any common sense must realize that there are many, many factors that go into how successful a radio station is at attracting and keeping listeners. Broadcasting doesn't take place in a vacuum. It's not just what any given station plays, it's what their competition is playing against them. It's how well promoted they are, and how effectively they reach out to people who don't listen to them to persuade them to switch over and give the station a try.

I'll guarantee that any business, regardless of what it is or does, that makes a change that will attract new customers who know about the change runs the risk of losing older customers who don't like the change. Any business. All businesses. This isn't something exclusive to radio. So, if a radio station makes a change, any change, but doesn't follow up with an effective promotional effort to inform there non-customers of the new change will usually find that they lose old customers but do not replace them with new customers. But, any business that improves their operations and lets non-customers know about those new changes, is likely to add more new customers than it loses.

You do not have to be an industry insider to notice the lack of effective promotion for radio stations in media where non-listeners might see the promotions.

There are large groups of people who are very happy and satisfied with the programming. There is a small handful who want something else. For them, there are lots of other devices.

But that "large group" keeps on getting smaller and smaller.

 

[davideduardo]

No, because the research allegedly says that listeners only want to hear a small list of songs. I don't question which songs are picked so much as I question that only a relative handful of songs get picked. Those are two totally different things.

The number of songs on a station's playlist is a function of listener consensus and totally out of the control of a radio station. Remember, we are looking for consensus songs... ones everybody likes and at least a few of them love. We are not looking for songs some people like while others hate them, as that is self-destructive.

Classic hits stations, whether in big markets that research locally or in smaller ones that share research, to through the same process. They will, over the years, have researched every song that was even a minor hit as well as those that became, later, hits due to movie or TV exposure in hit shows and pictures. But if a song is tested and it scores something really dreadful, we don't come back to it unless we think there is a good reason, such as it being "too young for our demo". So many songs have been permanently discarded through the years as nearly nobody wants to hear them again, today.

Other songs drop off due to the younger part of our demo not finding them appealing. This is gradual, and a few songs go away every year for this reason, just as a few newer songs are added because even the oldest people in our target now like them.

There are other songs that have tested sort of neutral. Neither liked nor disliked. Those are often judgement calls by the programmer... some may be judged OK to retest based on the vision that is had of the station and its sound... but if they come back several times with no positives, we don't test them again.

So we end up testing, generally, over 1000 songs for such a format each time we test. That's the bunch that we play, plus hundreds of songs that we still want to know about because either they tested very close in the past or are newer and we are trying them to see if they now fit.

When we get the list back, the consensus songs are the ones we play. A station wants to be playing a "strong" song as often as it can, so a complex analysis of market TSL, station TSL and other factors determines how deep into the songs that are at least a little positive a station can or should go. That is why classic hits stations average from 500 to about 700 songs in regular rotation. That is because the listeners defined, over the years, the songs they still like or love to hear on the radio.

As for your inability to discern the difference between an anecdotal illustration of a point and proof, that says more about your inability to grasp what is being said than any comment I could make.

Perhaps if you tried to write more directly and succinctly without the literary excursions intended to make us think you are intellectually superior it would be easier to understand your points. What I understand of some of your efforts to describe anecdotes is that you always use ultra-personal experiences with no consideration for what a station's total listener base may actually like.

Again, you miss the point. I'd rather do something I'm passionate about than be a worker drone.

So you are saying you are not passionate about radio. OK, then why the "avid" in your name? Why all the time trying to convince people who are passionate about radio that they are wrong and that you, who have no passion for radio, are the bearer of the secret formula?

He must have read your posts that painted such a glowing picture of AM radio stations in the "AM radio is dead" thread.

If he did, he is not interpreting correctly when I have repeatedly used the term "frugally run" in the context of smaller-signal AMs and even inferior FMs. "Frugal" in this case means "as cheaply as possible" to preserve a margin of profitability with low grossing radio stations. In any case, Oldies 76 was referring to smaller market full signal FMs that program much larger playlists, not AMs and not smaller signals in major markets.

 

[TheBigA]

But that "large group" keeps on getting smaller and smaller.

Really? How do you know that? Some facts please.

And what proof do you have that changing these stations to suit you would make an improvement?

 

[oldies76]

No, I am just tired of seeing your posts repeating the same totally wrong ideas about radio... ideas that will utterly destroy radio stations and that never work... and refusing to accept that there are many, many competent programmers with enormous experience in creating well programmed, salable stations for their owners without your help.

David, I certainly appreciate what radio programmers are doing these days. They are doing an outstanding job, no question and I'm sure, if they had it their way, they would play whatever the heck they could. It's hard work. But they can't and are under stringent rules that prevent them from doing so.

I prefer the smaller station approach of larger playlists and looser presentation then what big cities have to offer. It's not the programmers, it's the methods they are forced to abide by.

There are many smaller stations that program to our satisfactions, many of which have not been "destroyed", some have been running for years. So it can work, for them anyways. Just not for the WCBS's and the KOLA's and the KRTH's anymore. I've accepted that.

 

[davideduardo]

As Eduardo pointed out, either in this thread or another one, it's the stations that pick which songs they'll test. So how do we mere listeners know that they tin-eared suits running any vintage format radio station only submit the same handful of songs for testing?

I just posted an answer to this. Please take a look.

How can any test audience possibly listen to the thousands of songs out there?

It's simple, if you read the other post. Over the years, songs that always test badly or songs that start testing badly with the younger target demos are eliminated. There are some songs that we test repeatedly, as they are teetering on the edge. And there are some that may be candidates for inclusion as the people in our demo change due to aging out of some and entrance of others. So that usually gives us a finite number of songs to test each time. Over the years, thousands and thousands of songs get tested and retested. But once we know the ones that will never test, the field gets much more limited.

But that "large group" keeps on getting smaller and smaller.

No, the group does not get smaller. Radio's reach is very close to what it was 50 years ago when Arbitron began. What is changing is that less time is being spent listening to AM and FM radio, and more time is being spent listening to radio via streaming. While this introduces new competitors such as Pandora, the pureplay streams of iHeart Radio and things like Apple Radio, it just changes the competitive landscape for the heritage radio content providers, not the use of radio.

 

[davideduardo]

David, I certainly appreciate what radio programmers are doing these days. They are doing an outstanding job, no question and I'm sure, if they had it their way, they would play whatever the heck they could. It's hard work. But they can't and are under stringent rules that prevent them from doing so.

That's not true at all. When I first did a music test back in the mid-80's I saw that my assumptions were significantly wrong. Although I had several #1 stations in that market to my credit, I saw that using research allowed me to know what the listeners wanted and what they did not want. I used the research to take the last-place FM in a top 20 market to #1 in just a few months... a position it then held for the next 22 years (a major market record, by the way).

So, like all major market programmers, I recognize that research is a valuable tool to have. It just improves the results from my efforts to provide the best on-air talent, well-written promos, perfect music scheduling and rotations, good contests and a good, overall radio station.

I prefer the smaller station approach of larger playlists and looser presentation then what big cities have to offer. It's not the programmers, it's the methods they are forced to abide by.

Yeah, it's the "if you can't afford a BMW, buy a used Ford Focus. I'd rather have the Beemer.

There are many smaller stations that program to our satisfactions, many of which have not been "destroyed", some have been running for years. So it can work, for them anyways. Just not for the WCBS's and the KOLA's and the KRTH's anymore. I've accepted that.

Good. Then listen to them, if you like them better. But you do need to understand that the classic hits station from Dubuque or Jackson, TN or St. Joseph, MO would be massacred in a larger market because most listeners, when given a choice, go for the station that plays their favorite songs every time they tune in.

 

[oldies76]

I'll guarantee that any business, regardless of what it is or does, that makes a change that will attract new customers who know about the change runs the risk of losing older customers who don't like the change. Any business. All businesses. This isn't something exclusive to radio. So, if a radio station makes a change, any change, but doesn't follow up with an effective promotional effort to inform their non-customers of the new change will usually find that they lose old customers but do not replace them with new customers. But, any business that improves their operations and lets non-customers know about those new changes, is likely to add more new customers than it loses.

True. Kind of reminds me of the debate about 55+. When classic hits stations dropped the 50's and 60's (and now the early 70's), a ton of listeners were lost, but yet they are mostly still alive and doing well. What do these folks have to listen to? Their own scratchy 45's or You Tube streams? I'm sure they would still love to hear their favorite Chubby Checker, Bill Haley or Chiffons tunes on the air, but can't. Unless they find some rural AM still throwing out those gems, it's very much over for them in regards to radio. So yes, radio has lost many listeners. It's an advertising issue, that frankly needs to change.

These listeners and the wealth of oldies they have in front of them, would be thrilled to have stations that catered to them.
If done right and promoted, these radio "customers" could return in huge numbers.

 

[Music Lover]

No, the group does not get smaller. Radio's reach is very close to what it was 50 years ago when Arbitron began. What is changing is that less time is being spent listening to AM and FM radio, and more time is being spent listening to radio via streaming. While this introduces new competitors such as Pandora, the pureplay streams of iHeart Radio and things like Apple Radio, it just changes the competitive landscape for the heritage radio content providers, not the use of radio.

Traditional radio is beneficial for local information such as weather updates, traffic reports, etc.

The thing I like about streaming is being able to hear music from around the globe.

Internet also provides a more personal aspect, as mentioned in this blog: http://radiobattles.blogspot.com/

 

[Music Lover]

True. Kind of reminds me of the debate about 55+. When classic hits stations dropped the 50's and 60's (and now the early 70's), a ton of listeners were lost, but yet they are mostly still alive and doing well. What do these folks have to listen to? Their own scratchy 45's or You Tube streams? I'm sure they would still love to hear their favorite Chubby Checker, Bill Haley or Chiffons tunes on the air, but can't. Unless they find some rural AM still throwing out those gems, it's very much over for them in regards to radio. So yes, radio has lost many listeners. It's an advertising issue, that frankly needs to change.

These listeners and the wealth of oldies they have in front of them, would be thrilled to have stations that catered to them.
If done right and promoted, these radio "customers" could return in huge numbers.

That's they way my parents feel about classic hits stations on FM these days.

 

[davideduardo]

These listeners and the wealth of oldies they have in front of them, would be thrilled to have stations that catered to them.
If done right and promoted, these radio "customers" could return in huge numbers.

But those listeners are all going to be over 55, and of no interest to most advertisers. Radio can not survive programming to seniors as there is very little ad revenue to be had in that area.

 

[Avid Listener]

The number of songs on a station's playlist is a function of listener consensus and totally out of the control of a radio station. Remember, we are looking for consensus songs... ones everybody likes and at least a few of them love. We are not looking for songs some people like while others hate them, as that is self-destructive.

And, people whose taste don't fit what you're choosing to play don't fit the profile, and their opinions are factored out of the tests, as you informed us earlier. You're describing a seriously circular logic. You only want the people who like what you're playing to participate in your testing, and then they confirm that they like what you're playing.

No, the group does not get smaller. Radio's reach is very close to what it was 50 years ago when Arbitron began. What is changing is that less time is being spent listening to AM and FM radio, and more time is being spent listening to radio via streaming. While this introduces new competitors such as Pandora, the pureplay streams of iHeart Radio and things like Apple Radio, it just changes the competitive landscape for the heritage radio content providers, not the use of radio.

You left out how much time is now spent with the radio on in the background as noise, being ignored. Since it benefits the suits to count radios that are merely on as background noise as "listeners", advertisers are throwing their money away on commercial spots that are being ignored.

 

[TheBigA]

You only want the people who like what you're playing to participate in your testing, and then they confirm that they like what you're playing.

Once again, even if you completely IGNORE testing, and program by your gut, we get minute-by-minute breakdowns of how the audience is responding to the songs being played on the air. We can see it right in front of us. Don't focus all your attention on one single source. We don't. We have multiple sources for our choices. It's nice to do call out research, auditorium testing, and anything else we can do. But at the end of the day we're judged by how the station is doing in the ratings. And Adult Contemporary as a format is very successful, and is adapting to the changing media environment. Lots of other formats could only hope for what AC is doing.

 

[davideduardo]

And, people whose taste don't fit what you're choosing to play don't fit the profile, and their opinions are factored out of the tests, as you informed us earlier. You're describing a seriously circular logic. You only want the people who like what you're playing to participate in your testing, and then they confirm that they like what you're playing.

You missed the part about including listeners to competitive radio stations in tests and the use of music pods as screeners. Those pods are made up of well performing songs that define the format being researched... if a person does not like the pods, they won't like a station built around that kind of music. But if they do, they may not like our station as it is now but we will get their opinions along with all the others and find the consensus.

However, a station that is highly rated may simply research the core... its own heavier listeners. If management believes the station is doing as well as it could, they are not going to go after fringe listeners to the detriment of the core. It all depends on the station position in the market...

And as BigA says, we have many other tools, from callout for current intensive formats to MScores in PPM markets to the actual ratings to tell us how we are doing.

You left out how much time is now spent with the radio on in the background as noise, being ignored. Since it benefits the suits to count radios that are merely on as background noise as "listeners", advertisers are throwing their money away on commercial spots that are being ignored.

That has been the case for decades. Beautiful Music was predominantly used in the background, but advertisers loved the format because it got results. And today, advertisers look for impressions, whether background or foreground... it is the way advertising is bought.

 

[TheBigA]

And as BigA says, we have many other tools, from callout for current intensive formats to MScores in PPM markets to the actual ratings to tell us how we are doing.

In addition, I'm constantly going to concerts and new artist showcases, constantly being presented new music or refreshing catalog from the record labels and publicists, and constantly interacting with listeners either personally at shows or via social media. I get lots of input from all kinds of people and all of the various stake-holders in music to make sure I'm not missing something that could resonate with potential listeners. I watch how they use media, I get reports on who uses our websites, and what content they're clicking on, demographics on the people who are making requests, and anything else you can imagine. We are not living in some isolated world, playing what we want. We get lots of information, and I'm very confident in the music I play.

 

[K.M. Richards]

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.

Fine. One anecdotal exception. Statistically insignificant. Show me where even 10% of the listeners did that. Or 5%.

Most listeners will do what you did initially, and finding similar results at the other stations, go back to where they started. Very, very few people switch to streams for their day-in, day-out listening under the circumstances. I expect people who post on message boards to consider streams as an alternative, because they are more connected to their computers. The average listener is nothing like you in that regard. (Nothing wrong with you being computer-oriented, just a statement based on my own observations.)

 

[Music Lover]

You left out how much time is now spent with the radio on in the background as noise, being ignored.

When I was a kid, radio was more foreground. Now that I'm older, it's become more background.