The real truth is that we don't have to justify what we do or why we do it to you. You don't pay us for what we do. You're just someone who casually takes what we do if it appeals to you, or skips it if it doesn't. If you don't like what we do, then don't listen. Lots of other choices. But I'm not going to try to win you over to something you get for free. There's absolutely nothing in it for me.
-
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
It's 2015! Time to get rid of the '70s.
- Thread starter CurtisNEPA
- Start date
M
Music Lover
Guest
Some uptempos I enjoy, like "Beat It" by Michael Jackson or "With Every Beat Of My Heart" by Taylor Dayne. But Guns N Roses...no....never have liked them...even as a kid. Although, I have liked me some other 80's rockers - Heart, Bon Jovi, Pat Benatar.
If I were a teen, I would probably be into Miley, Lady Gaga, etc. But my tastes have outgrown that.
Upbeat music seems to be a little lesser right now than earlier this morning.
Last edited:
If, as you say, those streams are available anywhere in the world, then how can there be a "daytime"? It's night in half of the world at any given time.
At what time of the day and what day of the week did it run?
Yet, in 2200 posts, you have never made a single specific suggestion or recommendation of what radio should do to change this.
Last edited:
B
BOZ Profit
Guest
Listen.. this argument to WAY TOO OLD, but I'm sure it will refuse to die regardless. This post is mostly for the enthusiasts... Radio Professionals will agree with me but only up to a point...
The FACT is that many Radio Professionals have proven to be successful in their methods, that have already been explained (ad nausea). When exploring (trying) the methods offered by the Enthusiasts, the ratings shrink and generally so does the revenue. There is evidence of this so it is not just a theory.
Doing radio "right" is a subjective matter. Owners look at the bottom line. They want to make as much money as possible. For an owner, "right" is the way that makes the most money. In most situations (not all, but most), the audience size has a direct impact on how much money the station makes. 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 and for most radio station owners, the ultimate objective is to make the most money possible (to relate to product sales: to get the highest margins possible)
As an analogy, Big Box Stores make more money and have more customers than the small local mom and pop shops. Why? Because people are fickle. We want what we want when we want it. The Big Box Stores can carry the inventory and even sell at a cheaper price to match the WANTS of their customers. Radio stations try to cater to the largest audience possible by playing the music most people want to hear when they want to hear it. The small local mom and pops generally make a living serving a niche. But a good number of radio stations are no longer owned by local mom and pops that just want to eek out a living and serve the local audience with specialty programming. Many are owned by larger companies that will do what the Big Box Stores do: serve a larger customer base by offering what they want when they want it. Some products may sit on the shelf for a while, but when a customer wants that widget, the store will have it.. the customer is happy and will return. If the customer wants something more specialized, or customized.. they will go to the local mom and pop that can cater to them. That is how terrestrial radio is.
There are many radio hobbyists on the Internet doing radio "right"...playing music THEY like. On the flip side, there are radio professionals doing radio "right" with large audiences and are making money.
With the Internet, mp3s and radio streaming so widely available, this argument is quite ridiculous. Before the Internet, we listened to a radio station as long as they were playing what WE personally liked, and when they played a couple songs we personally didn't like... or they just weren't playing "our favorite songs", first we turned the dial to try to find a station that was playing something we wanted to listen to IN THAT MOMENT... if THAT didn't work, then we turned off the radio and put on a record (then it was 8 tracks, then it was cassettes, then it was cds, then it was mp3s)... now we have the WHOLE internet to find programming we like when the radio station we listen to is NOT playing what we prefer to listen to in any given moment. We can even have our favorites streamed ON DEMAND, like when we used to make our own mix tapes to play what WE wanted to hear when we wanted to hear it. Radio stations have never really been personal juke boxes... but they did a good job of making us feel like they were. Now, we have more options for our personal tastes...
WHY... again I ask WHY, do you (the enthusiasts) insist on arguing a point that is TOTALLY MOOT given the options?
If you are thinking that the radio stations catering to the largest audiences will eventually fail.. Well. they will, unless they change to match the market at that time. THAT is business. It happens in every industry...
So I think the argument needs to be taken off of life support here.
Enthusiasts, when it comes to discussing music .. there is nothing wrong with asking why a station isn't playing it. When the answer is "it doesn't test well", that means in order for the station to reach the maximum audience at any given time, that song will not be included. It does not mean the song is not a good one. Everyone can actually like the song... but at any given time people may prefer to hear something else. If given the option of Bing Crosby's White Christmas vs Meghan Trainor's All About that Bass on Christmas Day, maybe most people would prefer Bing Crosby's White Christmas because it's Christmas and it's a classic... but the day after most will likely prefer Meghan Trainor's All About that Bass.. (that's just an example for the discussion)
Now you can dissect my post and tell me why I am wrong. (good luck!)
The FACT is that many Radio Professionals have proven to be successful in their methods, that have already been explained (ad nausea). When exploring (trying) the methods offered by the Enthusiasts, the ratings shrink and generally so does the revenue. There is evidence of this so it is not just a theory.
Doing radio "right" is a subjective matter. Owners look at the bottom line. They want to make as much money as possible. For an owner, "right" is the way that makes the most money. In most situations (not all, but most), the audience size has a direct impact on how much money the station makes. 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 and for most radio station owners, the ultimate objective is to make the most money possible (to relate to product sales: to get the highest margins possible)
As an analogy, Big Box Stores make more money and have more customers than the small local mom and pop shops. Why? Because people are fickle. We want what we want when we want it. The Big Box Stores can carry the inventory and even sell at a cheaper price to match the WANTS of their customers. Radio stations try to cater to the largest audience possible by playing the music most people want to hear when they want to hear it. The small local mom and pops generally make a living serving a niche. But a good number of radio stations are no longer owned by local mom and pops that just want to eek out a living and serve the local audience with specialty programming. Many are owned by larger companies that will do what the Big Box Stores do: serve a larger customer base by offering what they want when they want it. Some products may sit on the shelf for a while, but when a customer wants that widget, the store will have it.. the customer is happy and will return. If the customer wants something more specialized, or customized.. they will go to the local mom and pop that can cater to them. That is how terrestrial radio is.
There are many radio hobbyists on the Internet doing radio "right"...playing music THEY like. On the flip side, there are radio professionals doing radio "right" with large audiences and are making money.
With the Internet, mp3s and radio streaming so widely available, this argument is quite ridiculous. Before the Internet, we listened to a radio station as long as they were playing what WE personally liked, and when they played a couple songs we personally didn't like... or they just weren't playing "our favorite songs", first we turned the dial to try to find a station that was playing something we wanted to listen to IN THAT MOMENT... if THAT didn't work, then we turned off the radio and put on a record (then it was 8 tracks, then it was cassettes, then it was cds, then it was mp3s)... now we have the WHOLE internet to find programming we like when the radio station we listen to is NOT playing what we prefer to listen to in any given moment. We can even have our favorites streamed ON DEMAND, like when we used to make our own mix tapes to play what WE wanted to hear when we wanted to hear it. Radio stations have never really been personal juke boxes... but they did a good job of making us feel like they were. Now, we have more options for our personal tastes...
WHY... again I ask WHY, do you (the enthusiasts) insist on arguing a point that is TOTALLY MOOT given the options?
If you are thinking that the radio stations catering to the largest audiences will eventually fail.. Well. they will, unless they change to match the market at that time. THAT is business. It happens in every industry...
So I think the argument needs to be taken off of life support here.
Enthusiasts, when it comes to discussing music .. there is nothing wrong with asking why a station isn't playing it. When the answer is "it doesn't test well", that means in order for the station to reach the maximum audience at any given time, that song will not be included. It does not mean the song is not a good one. Everyone can actually like the song... but at any given time people may prefer to hear something else. If given the option of Bing Crosby's White Christmas vs Meghan Trainor's All About that Bass on Christmas Day, maybe most people would prefer Bing Crosby's White Christmas because it's Christmas and it's a classic... but the day after most will likely prefer Meghan Trainor's All About that Bass.. (that's just an example for the discussion)
Now you can dissect my post and tell me why I am wrong. (good luck!)
Last edited:
M
Music Lover
Guest
In my half of the world it's "daytime" right now. In fact, it's almost lunchtime. On the station's feedback page, someone from the UK commented on the music. http://www.splash-fm.com/splash1b.html
And on this station's home page, someone from the Netherlands donated money because they like the music. http://www.kliteonline.com/
Last edited:
I think you present the facts quite well.
And the retail analogy to boutiques vs. big box stores is excellent. There will always be the equivalent of the carriage trade that mass market radio can not satisfy. It's good that today there are alternatives for people with exclusive or finicky taste, because radio has never been able to serve them. And the two can live side by side quite well, as neither eats off the plate of the other.
What irks me is when it is suggested that mass market radio ignore its research and past experience to serve the unservable. And when it's stated that we can't do that then both our proprietary research and Nielsen are called invalid, which is sort of like shooting the messenger.
M
Music Lover
Guest
For me, it's always been a personal juke box. I guess the "suits" would probably say I'm too stuck on that.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Yes, I have. You just ignored anything I have suggested, and claimed that since it didn't fit conventional wisdom, it must be wrong.
I am asserting that the market at this time is changing, and has, in fact, already changed. I also assert that the so-called "facts" presented as if they were Holy Writ come from industry inside sources with a vested interest in making the people who pay for the research happy, and who therefore provide research that proves that what the customer wants to hear is correct. The same goes for the ratings. It's interesting that the stations who refuse to subscribe to the ratings seem to be both successful and targeting markets other than what the ratings companies claim are the only profitable demographics to pursue.
I'm reminded of the very successful accountant who was tested by a potential client with a simple question, "How much is 2 + 2?" The answer that landed the accountant the contract was, "However much you want it to be."
All I've ever been saying is that in a town with well over two dozen different juke box stations on the radio, there must be room for one that is different enough to appeal to people with more eclectic tastes. For example, why does a given city need to have three hip-hop stations, two country stations, and no true classic rock station? I can't believe that one of those three hip-hop stations wouldn't make more money being the only classic rock station in town instead of the #3 hip-hop station.
Last edited:
B
BOZ Profit
Guest
How can it be personal when you are not controlling what is being played?
I liken the personal jukebox to the golden days of diners that had a little juke box right at the booth. It did cost a dime or a quarter or whatever, but was fun. The music was just loud enough for the people sitting in the booth to listen and you could choose as many or as few songs as you wanted (if any).. but were still limited by the selection. Many times I would look for my "favorites" and many times they were not included... could it be because MY favorites were not widely liked by the masses? Quite possible.. and so the juke box company could only include so many records in that little juke box. My favorites didn't make the cut. But I didn't complain to the juke box company.. when I got home, I simply would play my favorites for myself.
I do remember a company trying this model using a server on the Internet, which seemed to be a neat idea with the exception being that we have our personal devices now with our preferred music on them... I don't know what happened to that company though; I guess the personal devices put that business model out to pasture.
M
Music Lover
Guest
That's how I look at it too.
Last edited:
B
BOZ Profit
Guest
That's probably what the Big Band era listeners were saying when there were 3 rock stations in any given market: Couldn't the #3 rock station make more money as a Big Band station and cater to a niched audience than it was as the #3 rock station?
I would think that the audience for hip-hop would be about as strong an impulse-buying demo as any advertiser could dream of. Probably no end to the number of hip-hop stations a major market could support, providing it has a significant minority population in its central city and a substantial ring of suburbs to mine for additional listeners. Hip-hop is everywhere, and has been for years, and it seems to me that its fans would profile brand-conscious, impulse-buying and slaves to fad and fashion -- Ca-CHING! Get 'em while they're young and gullible, Madison Avenue!
M
Music Lover
Guest
This is the market closest to me: http://radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/locate?select=city&city=Danville&state=VA
AM is out of question because of poor reception.
On FM, country dominates the market. If you have easy listening tastes, like people in my circle of family and friends do, there's no choice but to turn elsewhere.
AM is out of question because of poor reception.
On FM, country dominates the market. If you have easy listening tastes, like people in my circle of family and friends do, there's no choice but to turn elsewhere.
You have made "requests" but with no specificity. Here is one example from your own post:
While you can't believe it, the market has determined that such is the case.
An "eclectic taste" format generally means something on the order of AAA or with AAA like library depth. Broadcasters know that such deep stations that have been launched in the last two decades have generally failed or become more mainstream. They also know that in markets with increasing ethnic populations, rhythmic music* is popular not only among Blacks, but with Hispanics and the general market. So multiple rhythmic stations will be able to be profitable, while the low-rated eclectic station will not.
Even if you think that the industry does not know how to program, we do know what ad agencies are buying and format choices are based on both an assessment of market needs and opportunities and on the "things" that agencies will buy and the things they won't.
Classic rock is the next Beautiful Music, Smooth Jazz, Oldies and Standards format... it is aging severely and will soon be to old for success. Either it morphs, as did Oldies, or it dies. But starting a new one today is not going to be high on any owner's list of choices.
* Those who don't like hip-hop often fail to differentiate: there are several separate formats including urban, Hurban, Churban, classic hip hop, rhythmic CHR and so on. All have slightly different constituencies and several can co-exist in a single market.
Last edited:
B
BOZ Profit
Guest
It can be hard to accept that we (mid-aged men) are becoming the forgotten demo... but isn't that the case with every generation? Good thing we do have options, compared to those who went before us. : )
Yep, and that (as I mentioned a moment ago) ignores the buying reality.
A reality that radio does not control, but is in a way a slave to.
There is a lot more money in being the #3 hip hop station, and no money in being the standards station. All a station has to do is look at the buy specs for the ad campaigns coming up in the market. Or decide if living off low-rate local direct makes sense.
Your post is well said and I can agree to what you've written.
What I'm disgusted at, is the fact the pros are knocking the smaller market radio stations and internet streams as basically inferior to their highly rated "big city" world of broadcasting and methods. There are countless small market stations, AM's and internet radio stations, yes some with low ratings, working their butts off, trying to please their audiences and music enthusiasts the best ways possible and all I hear is: "they won't last, they're at a 0.0, they only have ten listeners, their format will change, they're not making money, their days are numbered, they play music that are trainwrecks." Always criticism.
I realize the pros have a job to do in their markets, but when we bring up comparisons with other and better smaller stations that suits our needs, we feel like they are not getting the recognition they deserve as well. They are some really darn good stations and internet streams out there and by hard working folks......and they think they're right too!
Last edited:
M
Music Lover
Guest
Precisely. Just because an Internet station caters to someone that prefers to hear something more mellow than what's on AM/FM, does not make the station inferior.
- Status