Jesus wept: ENOUGH WITH THE MOVIN DEBATE

[TowerBuzz]

Jesus wept: ENOUGH WITH THE MOVIN DEBATE

Listen I get it, it's a new topic to discuss for ONCE on this board but the format has not done ANYTHING, ANYWHERE YET. It is in it's infancy and I contend if jammin oldies didnt make it here as great as I thought it was, I dont hold out much hope for Movin considering you already have two completely gold laden dance outlets already. Before Tony Santiago or the other dance purists jump in and try to argue the point that KTU and NEW are not "real dance" because they're not playing the newest, latest, underground, white label, only three copies in existence, club bangers,.etc,.listen: They are in the mind of the general public "dance" stations. I say again KTu doesnt flip, period .They have ten years of heritage with those call letters ( longer if you think people remember "92 ktu, the hot one".....and WNEW?...well they're just starting to get the word out that they have retained a format for more than a year. WHy would they trash the recognition of new York's classic dance to change theirr moniker to "Movin"? IF they adopt the format they dont change the moniker, they just play the playlist and call it a day. By the way: To everyone who is fixated on CBS having a huge stake in this, they dont. It is not a cbs format, it's Guy Zappoleon's who at last check is not on the CBS payroll, he's a consultant and works with whichever company he can con into bringing him in to tell them what they should already know...........lol. So until someone craks the mic and says " this is the new Movin 1,0, whatever..."..... IT aint happening.

thnak you, as you were.

 

[OldGringo]

Re: Jesus wept: ENOUGH WITH THE MOVIN DEBATE

It is not a cbs format, it's Guy Zappoleon's who at last check is not on the CBS payroll, he's a consultant and works with whichever company he can con into bringing him in to tell them what they should already know...........lol. So until someone craks the mic and says " this is the new Movin 1,0, whatever..."..... IT aint happening.

Actually, Zaploleon only consults Movin' in LA, which licensed the name from Alan Burns, who has the mark and the broader Movin' consultancy.

http://www.burnsradio.com/movin/

And Zaploleon is one of the better consultants... as evidenced by Rick Cummings brining him in on the Movin' project in LA.

 

[RickSklar77]

Re: Jesus wept: ENOUGH WITH THE MOVIN DEBATE

I have big respect for Tony Santiago and what he's trying to bring to NYC radio, but both Clear Channel and CBS are playing it safe, and they want to win by playing strong defense.

Ugh.

Although I believe with ALL MY BEING that New York can be a vanguard market and introduce successful, original format concepts to the rest of the country, the truth remains... New York radio has so many potential revenue dollars at stake that no-one is willing to take a chance on anything.

And from a fiduciary standpoint, that's really, really hard to argue against. From a creative standpoint, hell yeah! But there's not a single operator in New York who give's a rat's ass about creativity.

The ownership here has too much to lose at this point, so we are stuck with what we are stuck with.

In the NFL, great defense ALWAYS beats great offense. But in radio, great offense ALWAYS beats great defense. So wtf is everyone doing playing defense?

 

[Jeffrey]

Re: Jesus wept: ENOUGH WITH THE MOVIN DEBATE

I have big respect for Tony Santiago and what he's trying to bring to NYC radio, but both Clear Channel and CBS are playing it safe, and they want to win by playing strong defense.

Ugh.

Although I believe with ALL MY BEING that New York can be a vanguard market and introduce successful, original format concepts to the rest of the country, the truth remains... New York radio has so many potential revenue dollars at stake that no-one is willing to take a chance on anything.

And from a fiduciary standpoint, that's really, really hard to argue against. From a creative standpoint, hell yeah! But there's not a single operator in New York who give's a rat's ass about creativity.

The ownership here has too much to lose at this point, so we are stuck with what we are stuck with.

In the NFL, great defense ALWAYS beats great offense. But in radio, great offense ALWAYS beats great defense. So wtf is everyone doing playing defense?

Brilliant post. I couldn't have said it better myself! I agree with every single word!

 

[OldGringo]

Re: Jesus wept: ENOUGH WITH THE MOVIN DEBATE

I have big respect for Tony Santiago and what he's trying to bring to NYC radio, but both Clear Channel and CBS are playing it safe, and they want to win by playing strong defense.

Ugh.

Although I believe with ALL MY BEING that New York can be a vanguard market and introduce successful, original format concepts to the rest of the country, the truth remains... New York radio has so many potential revenue dollars at stake that no-one is willing to take a chance on anything.

And from a fiduciary standpoint, that's really, really hard to argue against. From a creative standpoint, hell yeah! But there's not a single operator in New York who give's a rat's ass about creativity.

The ownership here has too much to lose at this point, so we are stuck with what we are stuck with.

In the NFL, great defense ALWAYS beats great offense. But in radio, great offense ALWAYS beats great defense. So wtf is everyone doing playing defense?

Forgive me if I call this as I see it: totally ingenuous.

Radio owners are constantly researching for trend development and new formats based on such trends or on changing tastes or, simply, the changing competitive array. And, despite the detractors, most radio research is of high quality and most of those who interpret it are not stupid.

Were there an opportunity for dance, someone would try it. Insert the "missing" format of your choice in substitution for "dance" if you wish.

The real issue in changing a format is not lost revenue. It is portential revenue in the sales demos and whether such a potential makes up for the temporary losses. I have only had one format swap bill more in its first month than the old format did. The other 100 or so have, initially, lost revenue.

 

[TowerBuzz]

Re: Jesus wept: ENOUGH WITH THE MOVIN DEBATE

I have big respect for Tony Santiago and what he's trying to bring to NYC radio, but both Clear Channel and CBS are playing it safe, and they want to win by playing strong defense.

Ugh.

Although I believe with ALL MY BEING that New York can be a vanguard market and introduce successful, original format concepts to the rest of the country, the truth remains... New York radio has so many potential revenue dollars at stake that no-one is willing to take a chance on anything.

And from a fiduciary standpoint, that's really, really hard to argue against. From a creative standpoint, hell yeah! But there's not a single operator in New York who give's a rat's ass about creativity.

The ownership here has too much to lose at this point, so we are stuck with what we are stuck with.

In the NFL, great defense ALWAYS beats great offense. But in radio, great offense ALWAYS beats great defense. So wtf is everyone doing playing defense?

Forgive me if I call this as I see it: totally ingenuous.

Radio owners are constantly researching for trend development and new formats based on such trends or on changing tastes or, simply, the changing competitive array. And, despite the detractors, most radio research is of high quality and most of those who interpret it are not stupid.

That is so far from the truth, just false. "Most radio research is of the highest quality"? baloney: You know as well as I do the end result of any research package is wholly dependent upon those doing the research, the screeners could be off, or any one of a number of human factors that go into the research in the first place tend to skew the data/results. Many programmers use research as little more than a rubber stamp for what they already know, or what they wish to do or accomplish. You KNOW it is very very rare that a station gets research that says that there is a hole in a market this size for new format X, ad they follow that research and flip said station to said format X. Most research is painfully out of step with what listeners actually think because of the usual red tape that it takes for the Consultant, the GM, the PD etcetera to digest, understand, agree/disagree, debate, and then implement whatever changes that the research alls for. Dont get me wrong I think research is an invaulable TOOL, but that is all it is, a tool to be used in conjunction with guy and common sense which is sorely lacking in programming and has been the case for years. Sorry, "most radio research is of the highest quality"?

You're high!.

 

[OldGringo]

Re: Jesus wept: ENOUGH WITH THE MOVIN DEBATE

That is so far from the truth, just false. "Most radio research is of the highest quality"? baloney: You know as well as I do the end result of any research package is wholly dependent upon those doing the research, the screeners could be off, or any one of a number of human factors that go into the research in the first place tend to skew the data/results. Many programmers use research as little more than a rubber stamp for what they already know, or what they wish to do or accomplish. You KNOW it is very very rare that a station gets research that says that there is a hole in a market this size for new format X, ad they follow that research and flip said station to said format X. Most research is painfully out of step with what listeners actually think because of the usual red tape that it takes for the Consultant, the GM, the PD etcetera to digest, understand, agree/disagree, debate, and then implement whatever changes that the research alls for. Dont get me wrong I think research is an invaulable TOOL, but that is all it is, a tool to be used in conjunction with guy and common sense which is sorely lacking in programming and has been the case for years. Sorry, "most radio research is of the highest quality"?

Research in any field is done for a specific purpose. A music test can not find a new format. Call out can not test the library.

The companies doing reasearch for radio are excellent ones... from Critical Mass to Coleman to Edison and nearly all the others. They do what they promise to do, with excellent screeners, well supervised recruiting, processing, etc. And when a test is something other than an AMT, they provide loads or correlations, cross-tabs and analysis. I hope you don't think that individual stations are doing thier own questinnaires and recruiting? Even research companies use local, professional recruiters and a multi-gate screener for projects that require physical presence (one on ones, focus sessions, etc.) and use traned call centers to do those requiring hundreds of interviews that are done on the phone.

To find <a new format, there are a couple of test procedures you use to detect needs, dissatisfaction with current stations and willingness to change. When station owners are considering new options, they use such procedures and not the more well known ones. Of course, the PDs are usually not a part of this process, invalidating your reasoning. Strategic research, whether a perceptual, some kind of focus group or a format search, is generally ordered by higher management due to concerns about existing programming or to find out about alternatives.

Finding holes is rare, so it should not surprise you that research seldom finds new holes. So?

And the time to implement a test is not a sign of bad research, but, sometimes, of a bad broadcasters. I know we try to get AMTs on the air within 24 hours, and start work on perceptual findings the next day. A format search requires decisions that go beyond the norm: is the hole short-live, or will it last? Is the hole salable? Will it give payback to cover the conversion losses? Many holes are found that are not big enough to merit filling! But research will find them if the proper kind of research is conducted.

 

[TowerBuzz]

Re: Jesus wept: ENOUGH WITH THE MOVIN DEBATE

To quote the great Martin Landau as Bela Lagusi in Ed Wood: "Bullsh*T"

You implement perceptual findings the next day?: So if you get a perceptual that says your afternoon drive show is not liked, or not known you replace it the next day?, whatever. As for your assertions that research companies are completely professional blah blah, well i didnt say that research companies, Coleman et al were unprofessional, I did say that the research findings are far from perfect as you were implying. If you think that stations have no say in how research is conducted you're pretty naive, research companies do not just go off on their own, do their own thing and come back saying " this is what we found out, and you should do the following" that is not how it works. Research is OFTEN directed to reach a certain outcome, which is why very little changes in a given market more often than not.

 

[OldGringo]

Re: Jesus wept: ENOUGH WITH THE MOVIN DEBATE

To quote the great Martin Landau as Bela Lagusi in Ed Wood: "Bullsh*T"

You implement perceptual findings the next day?: So if you get a perceptual that says your afternoon drive show is not liked, or not known you replace it the next day?, whatever. As for your assertions that research companies are completely professional blah blah, well i didnt say that research companies, Coleman et al were unprofessional, I did say that the research findings are far from perfect as you were implying. If you think that stations have no say in how research is conducted you're pretty naive, research companies do not just go off on their own, do their own thing and come back saying " this is what we found out, and you should do the following" that is not how it works. Research is OFTEN directed to reach a certain outcome, which is why very little changes in a given market more often than not.

Most perceptual research for an ongoing format gives an indication of how to improve existing products. You would not do a perceptual on a bad afternoon show as Arbitron will tell you that it sucks. A perceptual will tell you why, if you are willing to invest in improving the show... otherwise, you already replaced it, and do not need the perceptual.

You do the perceptual to fine tune things. What parts of a show are liked, which ones are tired, which are tedious? Then you work with the talent to capitalize on strengths. And this is just one example.

The first thing one does in any kind of perceptual (rembering that 80% or radio programming research is music testing, not perceptual) is establish the goals of the project... from "health check" to "what's happened to mornings"... and then the research company generally writes the questionnaire (for a "big book" perceptual") or the talking points (for focus grupos, one on ones, phone open ended interviews, etc.) and reviews it with the station.

Stations generally defer to the research company in building the project, and simply contribute the program specific data that will allow the questionnair to be built. Seldom do they word the questions and never do they build the questionaire themselves when a real media research company is involved. I have seen disasters with local non-radio research companies doing projects with radio, but the station or the manager soon learns that you need the expertise of a company specialized in the medium.

Perceptual research is not directed at the entire market. It is always focused on some aspect, and is different from a format search. To say it is generally badly done is just wrong.