Jack, Jack, and more Jacks

[Radio_Realist]

Since the so-called "Jack" format is more about HOW the music is presented (w/o DJ's) and not WHAT music gets presented, what's to stop more than one station in the same market from switching to no-DJ presentations of their current music selections? Does a station have to call itself "Jack" to simply play songs without any DJ's?

Could, for example, 93.7 start to play its current playlist without DJ's and at the same time, could 92.9 or 100.7 do the exact same thing?

 

[trefdawg]

Or is this JACK presentation our generations form of "backround music" presentation? Remember the era of beautiful music stations that our parents and grandparents listened to?(93.7 Joi FM, 99.7 WSHH? In Cleveland WDOK-FM and WQAL? Akron WDBN the quiet island) Just a thought. if it turns out that way the entire FM band could go that route. ( What goes around comes around...only difference, the automation is more efficiant)

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

> Since the so-called "Jack" format is more about HOW the
> music is presented (w/o DJ's) and not WHAT music gets
> presented,

That's incorrect. JACK is more than just no DJs--in fact, the Jack stations in Canada have jocks. Those in the US do not for reasons beyond our control or understanding. The online Jack format (the originator, by Cadillac Jack--Bob Perry) doesn't have jocks, and neither does the officially-licensed Jack satellite service via ABC.

> what's to stop more than one station in the same
> market from switching to no-DJ presentations of their
> current music selections? Does a station have to call itself
> "Jack" to simply play songs without any DJ's?

No, but if it calls itself "Jack" it has to get permission from Buzznet Media through its licensor, Sparknet, because Buzznet Media/Bob Perry owns the trademark to that slogan, and any other titles (e.g., Bob, Tom, Joe, Stash, Sophie, etc.) which could cause confusion with "Jack" could be injunctively excluded as well. The joys of being trademarked!

> Could, for example, 93.7 start to play its current playlist
> without DJ's and at the same time, could 92.9 or 100.7 do
> the exact same thing?

They could, but it wouldn't necessarily be a Jack format. Again, it's not just radio without DJs. Buzznet Media puts out a Jack "bible" if you will when you license the format and name, etc. It sets the format, the aim, etc.

The music is also heavily researched, within the confines of what the Jack format is about. It is NOT just a rock format, or an AC format, or any individual format without DJs.

If I were you, I'd read more about Jack at Buzznet Media's official Jack website (www.jack.fm) and on the Variety Hits page here, and I'd also contact Cadillac Jack if you have questions.

Your broad statements above have given "Jack" an identity to which it doesn't belong or recognize, and one which has no basis in reality.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Johnny Morgan on 10/30/05 09:41 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[tpt]

Trefdawg and I are marching the same path.

"Jack" is merely beautiful music for boomers.

BTW, it's very appropriate that a Belmont County station is broadcasting Jack.
Because it is in Belmont County that you find "the house that Jack Built." (NOT the song by Aretha Franklin). See link:

http://www.bellaire.lib.oh.us/housethatjackbuiltv3.htm

includes a picture of Jack's tombstone.

 

[Oldiesgal]

> > Since the so-called "Jack" format is more about HOW the
> > music is presented (w/o DJ's) and not WHAT music gets
> > presented,
>
> That's incorrect. JACK is more than just no DJs--in fact,
> the Jack stations in Canada have jocks. Those in the US do
> not for reasons beyond our control or understanding. The
> online Jack format (the originator, by Cadillac Jack--Bob
> Perry) doesn't have jocks, and neither does the
> officially-licensed Jack satellite service via ABC.
>
> > what's to stop more than one station in the same
> > market from switching to no-DJ presentations of their
> > current music selections? Does a station have to call
> itself
> > "Jack" to simply play songs without any DJ's?
>
> No, but if it calls itself "Jack" it has to get permission
> from Buzznet Media through its licensor, Sparknet, because
> Buzznet Media/Bob Perry owns the trademark to that slogan,
> and any other titles (e.g., Bob, Tom, Joe, Stash, Sophie,
> etc.) which could cause confusion with "Jack" could be
> injunctively excluded as well. The joys of being
> trademarked!
>
> > Could, for example, 93.7 start to play its current
> playlist
> > without DJ's and at the same time, could 92.9 or 100.7 do
> > the exact same thing?
>
> They could, but it wouldn't necessarily be a Jack format.
> Again, it's not just radio without DJs. Buzznet Media puts
> out a Jack "bible" if you will when you license the format
> and name, etc. It sets the format, the aim, etc.
>
> The music is also heavily researched, within the confines of
> what the Jack format is about. It is NOT just a rock
> format, or an AC format, or any individual format without
> DJs.
>
> If I were you, I'd read more about Jack at Buzznet Media's
> official Jack website (www.jack.fm) and on the Variety Hits
> page here, and I'd also contact Cadillac Jack if you have
> questions.
>
> Your broad statements above have given "Jack" an identity to
> which it doesn't belong or recognize, and one which has no
> basis in reality.

No deejays is the way of the day in Florida.
>

 

[Radio_Realist]

> If I were you, I'd read more about Jack at Buzznet Media's
> official Jack website (www.jack.fm) and on the Variety Hits
> page here, and I'd also contact Cadillac Jack if you have
> questions.
>
> Your broad statements above have given "Jack" an identity to
> which it doesn't belong or recognize, and one which has no
> basis in reality.

Actually, the more I read about "Jack" from different sources, the more I'm reminded of ten blind men encountering an elephant.

 

[tibbs]

> Your broad statements above have given "Jack" an identity to
> which it doesn't belong or recognize, and one which has no
> basis in reality.
>

JM:

That has to be the best and most informative post that I have read on
RI.com to date. Great consideration across the board for what Jack is
and is not. To bad A a few of the posters below have to throw childish negativism out to make themselves feel valid and important. Jack is a well designed explosive formula that has and will lead to many great changes in this
industry. Thank you for putting the facts before those who will spend
time destroying and denying. You have a bright future ahead. I wonder
about the majority of naysayers who continue to flounder in radio.
They obviously will continue their annointed paths to nowhere.

And, thanks for the Bumper Morgan tribute. Now, while you
appear neutral on your preference for/against Jack, please
consider joining the uphill battle of talking sanity on the
Variety Hits board.

<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by tibbs on 10/31/05 05:11 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[OldiesCat]

Jack-Boomers

JACK is not a Baby Boomer-targeted format. It's strategic center is 38 yr old, slight female lean.


>
> "Jack" is merely beautiful music for boomers.
>
> BTW, it's very appropriate that a Belmont County station is
> broadcasting Jack. Because it is in Belmont County that you find "the house
> that Jack Built." (NOT the song by Aretha Franklin). See link:

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

> > Your broad statements above have given "Jack" an identity
> to
> > which it doesn't belong or recognize, and one which has no
>
> > basis in reality.
> >
>
> JM:
>
> That has to be the best and most informative post that I
> have read on
> RI.com to date. Great consideration across the board for
> what Jack is
> and is not. To bad A a few of the posters below have to
> throw childish negativism out to make themselves feel valid
> and important. Jack is a well designed explosive formula
> that has and will lead to many great changes in this
> industry. Thank you for putting the facts before those who
> will spend
> time destroying and denying. You have a bright future ahead.
> I wonder
> about the majority of naysayers who continue to flounder in
> radio.
> They obviously will continue their annointed paths to
> nowhere.
>
> And, thanks for the Bumper Morgan tribute. Now, while you
> appear neutral on your preference for/against Jack, please
> consider joining the uphill battle of talking sanity on the
> Variety Hits board.
>

I appreciate your kind words. You are correct--I am neutral on the JACK format. I programmed something similar to it in college, essentially reading student's "shared" network folders, seeing what MP3s they had, calculating the recurrents, running a mailed survey (do you like this, that, other), doing a quick sound test, and going from there. It was jockless, and was well received. They also really dug the whole no-commercial thing, but that's a preculiarity of college radio, not Jack, as such.

Is Jack the savior of radio? Probably not--if radio is hurting. Programming is weak now, but the business side is status quo--in some markets better, in some markets marginally reduced. As good as JACK may be, its success thus far is still speculative. It hasn't been around long enough to stake its claim. It's getting there though. By spring, we should be able to make informed conclusions. Some may be positive, some negative.

I have not yet heard a JACK broadcast station "in action". I've heard the online version--hell, I heard that two years ago when it started--but not "on-air". I'll be in Pittsburgh this weekend, in fact near Washington, so 100.5 from Wheeling should come in pretty well. I'll see what the sat version is like, and MAYBE even (since you've got me goin' here), see if I can grab NYC's JACK on 101.1 via webstream (they still do, yes?)

 

[tpt]

Re: Jack-Boomers

> JACK is not a Baby Boomer-targeted format. It's strategic
> center is 38 yr old, slight female lean.
That's what they may be hoping for, but from what I hear on 100.5 with ABC's version, I would disagree.

 

[OldiesCat]

Jack-Boomers

ABC's version isn't the "Jack" version. They are indeed different.

But do know none of these are targeted at Baby Boomers. If you're centered at a 50 yr old listener- THAT is aimed at Baby Boomers. The last of the Baby Boom generation were born in 1964. I think there's this misconception that anything that's library-based is aimed at Boomers and that's just not the case.

(another Jack myth busted LOL)


> That's what they may be hoping for, but from what I hear on
> 100.5 with ABC's version, I would disagree.
>
> > JACK is not a Baby Boomer-targeted format. It's strategic
> > center is 38 yr old, slight female lean.

 

[Jay_F]

> Since the so-called "Jack" format is more about HOW the
> music is presented (w/o DJ's) and not WHAT music gets
> presented, what's to stop more than one station in the same
> market from switching to no-DJ presentations of their
> current music selections? Does a station have to call itself
> "Jack" to simply play songs without any DJ's?
>
> Could, for example, 93.7 start to play its current playlist
> without DJ's and at the same time, could 92.9 or 100.7 do
> the exact same thing?
>


I think you have it backwards. The success JACK is having in many markets is mostly due to the MUSIC not the jockless presentation. When I monitor the JACK station where I live, I enjoy the music, I love the train wrecks, I love hearing songs that haven't played on the radio in years/decades, I love the variety. Until Jack, just about every radio station who ever used the term "variety" was lying.

A few days ago I heard my local JACK play the following three songs in a row.

Violent Femmes-Blister in the Sun
Who-Sqeeze Box
Savage Garden-I Want You

I have always loved the Femmes. I bought that album when it was new in 1983. I would say I have gotten burned on that song over the last decade (ironically it has gotten more airplay in recent years than it did the first 10 years it was out),but it still has a soft place in my heart.

The Who song is a total oldie to me, everything you could ask for in an oldie because it brought me right back to my childhood in 1976 when it was a current. My dad and I both loved that song and I can remember the exact stretch of road we were on when we had it blasting in the car. An ultimate "music of your life" song for me that brings back a lot of emotion. Also, and I dont quite understand why, classic rock type tracks sound far better to me on Jack than they do on classic rock stations. I guess it's because they really stand out being sandwhiched between non-classic rock. Even a song that I have heard a million times like "Blinded by the Light" sounds FRESH on Jack for some reason.

The Savage Garden is pure bubblegum pop fun. I have to love any song with "cherry cola" in the lyrics. It's the type of song that in the normal scheme of things would be played by CHR as a current and then never heard from again as gold on any format. That's what I like about Jack, He violates the "normal scheme of things.

It's ALL about the music. If let's say a standard Hot AC went jockless, I would predict a 0.9 or 1.1 share in every market. Jockless is a by-product of JACK, not it's main draw. For now, having the JACK voice saying quirky liners goes along with the format fine, because it's a different approach mixed with a unusual music mix. Having jocks might make JACK seem too "normal", at least for now.

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

Re: Jack-Boomers

> ABC's version isn't the "Jack" version. They are indeed
> different.

No, the ABC satellite *IS* the official "Jack".

See <a target="_blank" href=http://www.jack.fm>www.jack.fm</a>. Look about half-way down the page, left side. Big deal there about Sparknet (the official Jack licensor) signing a deal with ABC. The tip-off is the "Jack" name--it's trademarked by Bob Perry/Buzznet/Sparknet, and can only be used if licensed.

"Sam," which is Westwood One's variety hits satellite format, is not.

 

[tibbs]

Re: Jack-Boomers

> > ABC's version isn't the "Jack" version. They are indeed
> > different.
>
> No, the ABC satellite *IS* the official "Jack".
>
> See www.jack.fm. Look about half-way down the page, left
> side. Big deal there about Sparknet (the official Jack
> licensor) signing a deal with ABC. The tip-off is the
> "Jack" name--it's trademarked by Bob Perry/Buzznet/Sparknet,
> and can only be used if licensed.
>
> "Sam," which is Westwood One's variety hits satellite
> format, is not.
>

JM:

The satellite version is somewhat more "focused" and IMHO
more boring than many of the locally programmed Jack's
that are also under CJ. I highly suggest you listen online
to what I consider to be the best respresentative of a
great Jack station....www.963jackfm.com from Nashville.
I doubt I would be biased. CJ what is the exact target
age? I agree with 38 being about right, although I think
everyone has to be impressed with 25-54 +/- listening
in regularly. It's on EVERYWHERE in Nashville. I have not
seen anything like this in 25 years.

 

[OldiesCat]

Jack-Boomers

got 'em backward- thanks.
>
> "Sam," which is Westwood One's variety hits satellite
> format, is not.
>

 

[corpradiosux]

Re: Jack-Boomers

> JACK is not a Baby Boomer-targeted format. It's strategic
> center is 38 yr old, slight female lean.
>
>
LOL, if that's the case and BOB is a typical Jack station, they're really doing a crappy job!

(Although I must admit I have odder taste than the average 38 year old female.)

 

[tpt]

Re: Jack-Boomers

The real bottom line is that JACK was originally touted as the answer to dwindling 18-24 numbers-- folks supposedly abandoning radio for I-pods.

The "concept" is that the music mix and presentation is "anti-radio" and more like a random mix one would hear on the typical I-Pod.

Not!

Whether it's boomer targeted or "generation X" it's certainly not aimed at anyone under thirty. (Caveat--haven't heard BOB 96.9 yet---too far away from me--but posts here would indicate similar mix as the true Jack on 100.5).

 

[OldiesCat]

Jack-Boomers

That is a patently false statement. No "Jack" in America is targeted at 18-24 listeners.

It's targeted at 30-45 yr old adults tired decades of 250 song playlists and inane disc jockey clutter. It's not aimed at Baby Boomers nor under 25-ers.

"Jack" will eventually have a personality presence- it is still very early in the game.

> The real bottom line is that JACK was originally touted as
> the answer to dwindling 18-24 numbers-- folks supposedly
> abandoning radio for I-pods.
>
> The "concept" is that the music mix and presentation is
> "anti-radio" and more like a random mix one would hear on
> the typical I-Pod.
>
> Not!
>
> Whether it's boomer targeted or "generation X" it's
> certainly not aimed at anyone under thirty.
> (Caveat--haven't heard BOB 96.9 yet---too far away from
> me--but posts here would indicate similar mix as the true
> Jack on 100.5).
>

 

[tpt]

Re: Jack-Boomers

> That is a patently false statement. No "Jack" in America is
> targeted at 18-24 listeners.
>
And that's my point. Obviously Jack is targeted at an older audience than 18-24. However, the early hype was that this was the format designed to win back the 18-24's who were abandoning radio for I-pods and the internet. Apparently those hype-sters hadn't heard the format at that point.

So now we have "Jack," "Bob" "Sam" "Ted" and ...no wait, "Alice" was something different...still aimed at a 35+ audience that's served (or bored, some argue) by existing formats.

Certainly cheap to operate (especially if you go the satellite/VT route). Certainly novel. Long term success or flash in the pan? We should see fairly quickly (year or 18 months)