K-Rock's ship still doomed to sink with O&A on board

[Brooklyndon]

Here's the problem with Brooklyndon's argument...

He wants to target hipsters. Can anybody name me an advertiser featuring products that hipsters want that can afford to advertise on K-Rock? That's the catch-22.

How about Pabst Blue Ribbon, for starters. Then Levi's, New York Sports Club, American Apparel,Fresh Direct/Trader Joe's, Guitar Center, Amazon.com/BarnesandNoble.com, T-mobile/Verizon, Macy's for business attire, "the movies," the Pork Council, Bank of America, Expedia.com/Priceline.com/Orbitz.com, Bounty Paper Towels, Target, the list is endless. Hipsters have to buy goods like everyone esle, they just have the extra income to buy the brand that fits their lifestyle.

Throw the resurgence of PBR as a youth-growth brand example in the face of any mid-to-large size company that depends on branding to justify why their product costs 20% more than the competition, and you'll have their ears. After that it's a matter of your salesforce's ability to close a deal.

But to touch on what Walter and Feeball wrote, I completely agree. I think K-Rock needs to add two or three streaming channels to its website, one for alternative, one for nu-metal, and another for personality, add more spigots to the fountain, essentially. Also, do daily best of podcasts, 50-60 minutes of new music and hits (dived by genre of course), perhaps some particularly amusing 4 minute O&A bit from that day's show, and 10 minutes of spots mixed in, downloadable every night at 6PM.

Unlike getting an FCC license, all you need to start an internet radio station is server space, and I'm guessing CBS has lots of it. Throw in the huge advantage they have in terms of current name recognition, the established relationships with concert promoters and record companies, and the piles of cash their parent company sits on, and K-Rock will expand its brand when all the dust settles if they pursue this strategy.

Lastly, just to touch upon the sales pitch for streaming internet radio the number one point is that "the listeners on streaming are already in your store, if they are streaming music online, then they can log on to your website immediately." The rebuttal to I don't have a website, should be to point out Pabst's re-emergence as a youth-oriented growth brand by targeting youth.

The only way for K-Rock to survive, will be for its frequency to compliment its website, and, again, I think that three hours of Opie and Anthony has very narrow appeal, and those whom it appeals already listen on XM. O&A hurt K-Rocks ability to attract new listeners whom they can get set up on the genre fitting their style best on their website, thereby turning them leads they can sell to whatever marketer will bid highest.

 

[adma]

But, would such advertisers, or certain amongst them, *want* to advertise on K-Rock? You don't put good money after bad, or square, or embarrassing.

Though if we're thinking in terms of the cross O+A bears, it isn't like edgy/tasteless/offensive *isn't* hip or marketable--witness the success of Vice Magazine. Trouble is, Vice is the kind of realm that radio folk tend to be totally oblivious to or totally disoriented by. All that, er, post-MTV American Apparel-friendly super-stylishness (even if it were only super-stylish the day before yesterday) tends to give Herb Tarlek types epileptic seizures, if you get my drift. It's an unbridgeable cultural gap. Radio lost the style/hipster wars longer ago, and more decisively, than it realizes.

Let's be honest. Too often these days, it seems like radio's notion of targeting "hip" 18-34 white males (or females, for that matter) seems to be culled from a creepy-uncle's experience of trolling escort review boards. So if instead of oodles of 18-34 hipsters, you wind up with not-so-oodles of 38-54 schlubs, don't be surprised. And if real-life 18-34s roll their eyes at you, don't be surprised, either...

 

[Brooklyndon]

But, would such advertisers, or certain amongst them, *want* to advertise on K-Rock? You don't put good money after bad, or square, or embarrassing.

K-Rock as it currently stands, or K-Rock as a multimedia music platform/service?

Though if we're thinking in terms of the cross O+A bears, it isn't like edgy/tasteless/offensive *isn't* hip or marketable--witness the success of Vice Magazine. Trouble is, Vice is the kind of realm that radio folk tend to be totally oblivious to or totally disoriented by. All that, er, post-MTV American Apparel-friendly super-stylishness (even if it were only super-stylish the day before yesterday) tends to give Herb Tarlek types epileptic seizures, if you get my drift. It's an unbridgeable cultural gap. Radio lost the style/hipster wars longer ago, and more decisively, than it realizes.

I have to ask, who is Herb Tarlek?

Let's be honest. Too often these days, it seems like radio's notion of targeting "hip" 18-34 white males (or females, for that matter) seems to be culled from a creepy-uncle's experience of trolling escort review boards. So if instead of oodles of 18-34 hipsters, you wind up with not-so-oodles of 38-54 schlubs, don't be surprised. And if real-life 18-34s roll their eyes at you, don't be surprised, either...

And here I was thinking it was all just payola.

 

[Starscream]

I have to ask, who is Herb Tarlek?

If you are on a radio board and you are asking this question, you have zero appreciation for the art, the concept, in fact, the entire community of radio. Go home.

 

[Starscream]

Here's the problem with Brooklyndon's argument...

He wants to target hipsters. Can anybody name me an advertiser featuring products that hipsters want that can afford to advertise on K-Rock? That's the catch-22.

How about Pabst Blue Ribbon, for starters. Then Levi's, New York Sports Club, American Apparel,Fresh Direct/Trader Joe's, Guitar Center, Amazon.com/BarnesandNoble.com, T-mobile/Verizon, Macy's for business attire, "the movies," the Pork Council, Bank of America, Expedia.com/Priceline.com/Orbitz.com, Bounty Paper Towels, Target, the list is endless. Hipsters have to buy goods like everyone esle, they just have the extra income to buy the brand that fits their lifestyle.

I've never heard a PBR radio spot.

Priceline advertised all the time on the old WNEW.

Amazon doesn't advertise on the radio.

Guitar Center can and does advertise on K-Rock.

Verizon has radio spots. So does T-Mobile. They advertise on hot talk. So there's no reason to think they'd advertise on K-Rock.

Hipsters eat pork? I've never seen a fat hipster.

Target doesn't advertise on the radio.

When was the last time you heard a paper towel ad on the radio?

The whole idea of "broadcasting" is appealing to different demographics. And "hipster" isn't even a demographic, it's a bunch of neo-hippies who complain about Bush while wearing fancy clothes and amounts to running their mouth.

 

[adma]

Re Herb Tarlek:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Tarlek

And re "K-Rock as a multimedia music platform/service": well, let's offer a useful paradox. In order to make it "hipster-friendly", you have to negate the K-Rock label and identity. Otherwise, it'd be as desperate as middle-aged squares wearing Nehru jackets and saying "groovy" all the time in 1969.

Do you have any "hipster" frame of reference outside of commercial rock radio?

OTOH...

And "hipster" isn't even a demographic, it's a bunch of neo-hippies who complain about Bush while wearing fancy clothes and amounts to running their mouth.

Ah, but maybe a reason for the cultural dilemma of (white) radio in NYC is its identification with a bunch of Herb Tarleks sneering at said bunch of neo-hippies who complain about Bush while wearing fancy clothes and amounts to running their mouth...

 

[Brooklyndon]

Re Herb Tarlek:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Tarlek

Forgive me for not being old.

And re "K-Rock as a multimedia music platform/service": well, let's offer a useful paradox. In order to make it "hipster-friendly", you have to negate the K-Rock label and identity. Otherwise, it'd be as desperate as middle-aged squares wearing Nehru jackets and saying "groovy" all the time in 1969.

Right and the entire point of my thread has been to point out that K-Rock as it stands is doomed to failure and O&A are the reason K-Rock sounds and looks they way it does now.

Do you have any "hipster" frame of reference outside of commercial rock radio?

Well outside of what I see here on Graham Ave and the bars in the vicinity, no not really. I'm a finance guy who just happens to live with people my age and frequent the same spots. I'm always hearing Nu-Wavy rock when I'm out. And the bartenders seem to appreciate the fact that I can tell the difference between the General public and English Beat songs playing on their ipods hooked up to the bars' soundsystem. Why doesn't K-Rock play music like this?


OTOH...

And "hipster" isn't even a demographic, it's a bunch of neo-hippies who complain about Bush while wearing fancy clothes and amounts to running their mouth.

Ah, but maybe a reason for the cultural dilemma of (white) radio in NYC is its identification with a bunch of Herb Tarleks sneering at said bunch of neo-hippies who complain about Bush while wearing fancy clothes and amounts to running their mouth...
[/quote]

 

[neo11]

Re Herb Tarlek:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Tarlek

Forgive me for not being old.

And re "K-Rock as a multimedia music platform/service": well, let's offer a useful paradox. In order to make it "hipster-friendly", you have to negate the K-Rock label and identity. Otherwise, it'd be as desperate as middle-aged squares wearing Nehru jackets and saying "groovy" all the time in 1969.

Right and the entire point of my thread has been to point out that K-Rock as it stands is doomed to failure and O&A are the reason K-Rock sounds and looks they way it does now.

Do you have any "hipster" frame of reference outside of commercial rock radio?

Well outside of what I see here on Graham Ave and the bars in the vicinity, no not really. I'm a finance guy who just happens to live with people my age and frequent the same spots. I'm always hearing Nu-Wavy rock when I'm out. And the bartenders seem to appreciate the fact that I can tell the difference between the General public and English Beat songs playing on their ipods hooked up to the bars' soundsystem. Why doesn't K-Rock play music like this?


OTOH...

And "hipster" isn't even a demographic, it's a bunch of neo-hippies who complain about Bush while wearing fancy clothes and amounts to running their mouth.

Ah, but maybe a reason for the cultural dilemma of (white) radio in NYC is its identification with a bunch of Herb Tarleks sneering at said bunch of neo-hippies who complain about Bush while wearing fancy clothes and amounts to running their mouth...

[/quote]

Brooklyndon, I think you've accurately described the cluelessness that seems to exist among the ranks of those programming rock stations such as K-Rock. While I was happy to see the station return after the train wreck that was Free FM, the station is just making the same mistakes musically that it made in 2005 and earlier. The music on K-Rock isn't "hip." Hearing Welcome to the Jungle and Boulevard of Broken Dreams is *not* hip. It's amazing that rock ( especially indie, emo, or new wavy stuff) is quickly replacing rap amongst much of the younger demographic, and yet, K-Rock barely touches any of it. Even the 80s new wave stuff from the likes of General Public and English Beat has seen an upswing in popularity among those younger demos. I wouldn't base a whole format around it though sprinkling in some of the older stuff along with the hip new music (listened to by what I like to call the "Myspace demographic" - you guys probably know what I mean by that) would be better than another quasi-classic rock station.

 

[Hardrocker9]

Why aren't they even trying? You'd think given this big chance to make a name for themselves in the rock format, they would jump on it and be gun-ho about playing new artists. I saw on yes.com that they played bob marley, i mean comon! that's not suppose to be on Rock radio, may more for AAA. It boggles the mind why some active rock artists are no longer getting airplay. I say they follow in the footsteps of The Edge in albany. I think this stations gets good ratings,not sure. My point is that they have longevity and great variety of rock, with little classic rock thrown in, sometimes every other hour. Thoughts

 

[adma]

If you feel that way about Bob Marley, you're part of the reason this kind of "rock radio" is identified more with downmarket mouth-breathers and imbecilic mulletheads than, er, "hipsters". Sorry.

And as far as K-Rock not really trying, well...remember. It wasn't resurrected as "radio heritage", so much as it was resurrected because Free-FM failed. It's a quick desperation fix. They didn't really want to, but...what else could they do? It's a "Weekend At Bernie's" station: a propped-up corpse, marking time until they figure something else out, or sell off the signal, or whatever. Like Jack-FM, it's a liquidation-sale type of station. You can't expect "trying" from those who've clearly given up.

And as for the K-Rock brand spawning a multi-platform something or another: remember the business you're dealing with. The only palatable "multi-platform" they understand involves HD and HD-2...

 

[LinoNYC]

...a propped-up corpse, marking time until they figure something else out, or sell off the signal, or whatever. Like Jack-FM, it's a liquidation-sale type of station. You can't expect "trying" from those who've clearly given up.

An ignorant cynic might agree with that take, look at what is really involved here.

The environment; several of the major investment analysts have been referring to radio a "legacy media" for a year or more.

CBS owns three FMs in market needs to target advertiser desired demos without too much overlap of sister signals.

The number of formats that advertisers will support has declined to the point of boxing-in a narrow set of choices.

Although I don't care for any of CBS' choices they make good sense. After targeting females (WWFS) the 80s generation (Jack) they aim for young males with 92.3.

None of these formats aim for a "sophisticated" audience, they are mass appeal aimed at people that watch ballgames and sitcoms. They are cheaply operated in anticipation of a shrinking ad revenue base.

That is commercial radio's reality today.

If you feel that way about Bob Marley, you're part of the reason this kind of "rock radio" is identified more with downmarket mouth-breathers and imbecilic mulletheads than, er, "hipsters". Sorry.

You won't appreciate reading this, however, if you sell music to the public as I do you'll find that in 2007 Bob Marley has two commercially viable songs : "Jammin" and "Get Up, Stand Up". In some locations that can expand slightly but the reality is that he has been dead for 26 years, never had that much mainstream exposure and has fallen victim to the kind of winnowing-down that time and a lack of airplay does to even major acts such as The Beatles, Stones, Presley etc.

-Lino

 

[Brooklyndon]

CBS owns three FMs in market needs to target advertiser desired demos without too much overlap of sister signals.

The number of formats that advertisers will support has declined to the point of boxing-in a narrow set of choices.

Although I don't care for any of CBS' choices they make good sense. After targeting females (WWFS) the 80s generation (Jack) they aim for young males with 92.3.

None of these formats aim for a "sophisticated" audience, they are mass appeal aimed at people that watch ballgames and sitcoms. They are cheaply operated in anticipation of a shrinking ad revenue base.

That is commercial radio's reality today.

Why is CBS ignoring the streaming internet medium. NBC has a streaming website for its shows, why doesn't K-Rock have a streaming music service sliced and diced for more pointed musical tastes?

Do you get the question, have you been reading the post? K-Rock needs to do two things #1 get online with choice and #2 drop O&A so they can use their legacy medium as a more potent marketing tool for their web-service, from whence all the future audience and revenue growth will come.

If you feel that way about Bob Marley, you're part of the reason this kind of "rock radio" is identified more with downmarket mouth-breathers and imbecilic mulletheads than, er, "hipsters". Sorry.

You won't appreciate reading this, however, if you sell music to the public as I do you'll find that in 2007 Bob Marley has two commercially viable songs : "Jammin" and "Get Up, Stand Up". In some locations that can expand slightly but the reality is that he has been dead for 26 years, never had that much mainstream exposure and has fallen victim to the kind of winnowing-down that time and a lack of airplay does to even major acts such as The Beatles, Stones, Presley etc.

-Lino

The commerically viable logic is what brought K-Rock its 1-share. How about some barrington levi!

 

[Walter Graff]

"Why is CBS ignoring the streaming internet medium?"

Just a few statistics to add to the conversation. You can read about this in Arbitrons 2007 listening report. I have a hard copy, but I'm sure you can download it free on their site.

The weekly online radio audience is steady over the past year (estimated 29 million). Online has also not grown in general listenership from last year with 11% (12+) listening in the past week compared to 12% last year. Not to say it will not grow, but it normally attracts male, a higher earner, and a certain age group of male so it's more niche and why niche online offerings works best with the demo.

Awareness of HD Radio jumped from 14% to 26% from 2006 to 2007 but in Jan 07 only 6% said they were very interested in HD so while they know about it, not many are wanting it. Of course when htey get it and see how little it really offers right now, they will tell their friends not to waste their time.

Fewer than 1 in 10 report less over-the-air radio listening specifically due to time spent with their iPod/portable MP3 player which says that folks are listening to many forms of media, but none is really impacting all the choices as is shown by the 70% of Americans 12+ do not own an iPod/portable MP3 player, the 15 % who report Ipods has had no impact on radio listening, and the 9% that said they are listening less to over-the-air radio. While another 5% report spending more time listening to over-the-air radio due to time
spent with their iPod/MP3 player. Most important is that the most impact on radio listening from iPod/digital audio player use is age 12-24 which talks clearly about the future.

And finally the two current devices that have the most impact on people are cellphones and terrestrial radio. 94% of people listen to terrestrial radio and 19% say it has a major impact on their lives. I'm sure that number was bigger years past and all the newfangled forms of listening have diverted folks away from radio for the most part, even though 94% claim to have listened to radio sometime in the last year, which shows in the 12+, where the average time spent listening per day to terrestrial radio was about 2.4 hours compared to 2.5 hours listening to the new forms - online, satellite, audio podcast.

 

[LinoNYC]

Do you get the question, have you been reading the post?

Yeah, I do get the question, topics involving taste allways veer off into matters of personal preference. I'am just trying to bring things back to the realities that I as an investor see.

In that vein:

K-Rock needs to do two things #1 get online with choice and #2 drop O&A so they can use their legacy medium as a more potent marketing tool for their web-service, from whence all the future audience and revenue growth will come.

You are fixated on those two and seem to think that eliminating them would somehow open the door for more "sophisticated" listeners.

Those listeners are with NPR/WNYC or personal media they are not coming back (if they ever were interested) to commercial laden mass media. the major investment houses, who focus on the future in these cases predict reduced audience/revenue for "legacy" media.

If it were my decision, I'd hand you the keys to the studio and tell you go for it, it would be interesting to hear a different approach to rock radio. But, the "sophisticated' or hipsters are gone.

At this point CBS seems to think it can re-create the formula that worked during the stern era, a high billing AM drive and a cheap-to-run rock format the rest of the day. While I don't care for any of it, I personally think they are right.

Lino

 

[LinoNYC]

Awareness of HD Radio jumped from 14% to 26% from 2006 to 2007 but in Jan 07 only 6% said they were very interested in HD so while they know about it, not many are wanting it. Of course when htey get it and see how little it really offers right now, they will tell their friends not to waste their time.

Last night I had to go to the three Radio Shack stores in my neighborhood, all had both Acurian and BA HD sets they were displayed well enough, all were turned on but none had their antennas positioned properly and none got anything digital, in fact most were tuned to non-used frequencies and volume down. Ignored.

I've had an Acurian since late Nov and it works well however, even though we are roasted in RF here in Manhattan, antenna positioning is much more critical than for analog, will the average sales prospect be willing to fuss with this, or just take the set back as 'defective".

Probably best to wait for the next generation of receivers.

As for programming of the HD carriers, I use my set for the hd3 of WNYC and thats about all. Most of the commercial station's HD2&3 offerings consist of formats not deemed viable here in NYC, with the exception of WHTZ hd2 they are totally automated.

 

[Brooklyndon]

You are fixated on those two and seem to think that eliminating them would somehow open the door for more "sophisticated" listeners.

Lets face the fact, O&A appeal to a very small and tired demographic without much money. Dropping them would allow K-Rock to ditch their imaging and basically graduate the gen-x out of the 18-34 demo, and matriculate the gen-yers in the 18-34 demo.

Additionally, just to touch upon the fact that their is no growth in internet radio, they is also no promotion, and a website music service channel with stream and podcast shows dovetails nicely into technological growth, especially if they own a marketing tool legacy medium like radio.

 

[feeball]

Lets face the fact, O&A appeal to a very small and tired demographic without much money.

Much like the rest of the country these days, little to no money. Each post you have made regarding this subject goes right back to the "K Rock should fire O&A" defense.

If it was possible and if they had another morning show that could deliver what they are looking for, it would have been done already. It will be telling to see what they were able to do recently without the simulcasting on XM. Before O&A get fired from anywhere, it might be wise to hold off until all of the other on-air positions are filled. Once ratings start coming in from that, then they could clearly say who's out and who's in.

By the way, since you keep on saying O&A need to be gone, then what is your idea for mornings on the station? Clearly you got some idea as to who should be doing mornings and keep in mind it has to be a realistic idea. As far as your idea of what demographic should be reached, I don't think CBS Radio really cares about it because if they did, these moves would have been made January 3, 2006.

 

[adma]

Lets face the fact, O&A appeal to a very small and tired demographic without much money. Dropping them would allow K-Rock to ditch their imaging and basically graduate the gen-x out of the 18-34 demo, and matriculate the gen-yers in the 18-34 demo.

Maybe a few years ago, that might have made sense; but today, we're in the situation where Gen X and Gen Y have terminally graduated themselves out of radio altogether. It's not enough to be a "legacy medium"--otherwise, we'd be seeing laptops and PDAs branded "Smith-Corona" and "Olympia" and "Remington". Get the picture?

Although I don't care for any of CBS' choices they make good sense. After targeting females (WWFS) the 80s generation (Jack) they aim for young males with 92.3.

None of these formats aim for a "sophisticated" audience, they are mass appeal aimed at people that watch ballgames and sitcoms. They are cheaply operated in anticipation of a shrinking ad revenue base.

That is commercial radio's reality today.

Maybe a related reality might be how the reach of this kind of "mass appeal" has gone down in sophistication and IQ point level over the past few decades--perhaps because its one-time apparent "white middle" center of gravity has more means and initiative to "opt out" than it once did.

Remember, it isn't just young males--it's *ignorant* young males. But hey, whomever's left.

You won't appreciate reading this, however, if you sell music to the public as I do you'll find that in 2007 Bob Marley has two commercially viable songs : "Jammin" and "Get Up, Stand Up". In some locations that can expand slightly but the reality is that he has been dead for 26 years, never had that much mainstream exposure and has fallen victim to the kind of winnowing-down that time and a lack of airplay does to even major acts such as The Beatles, Stones, Presley etc.

But if we go by that "commercially viable" and "selling music to the public" logic, then VW shouldn't have used Nick Drake's "Pink Moon", because it would have made the public antsy, i.e. "what the f. is this song, I don't recognize it".

Then again, if we're talking about a "auditorium-tested 2007 radio audience" standard of public, I can understand what you're talking about--but just as much as O&A, that's a reason why "sophisticated" advertisers like Target, American Apparel, et al don't include radio in their ad-dollars equation...

 

[adma]

Further on my Bob Marley point: remember that it essentially addresses what Brooklyndon wants in a postmodern K-Rock (or whatever). And remember: "Legend" has consistently been a big catalog seller, out of all proportion to Marley's actual American success during his lifetime. Sure, he never had a hit single, and was scarcely more than a passing factor on American commercial radio beyond the dying days of 70s-style prog-FM--yet his music (and more than just the two "commercially viable" numbers mentioned here; also think of "Buffalo Soldier", "One Love", etc, etc, etc--*none* of which would leave any but the most imbecilic "casual listeners" antsy, I reckon) has more reach today than than a lot of what was actually "Hot 100" popular in his time.

When it comes to the issue of "mainstream exposure", Bob Marley's endurance probably embodies the long-term breakdown of said "mainstream" as an exclusive guide to public taste. But yes, I do understand. Because of the way in which US-style commercial radio's structured itself, there's none but the most miserly place for Bob Marley; and he'd stick out like a sore thumb, anyway, much as certain cool jazz standards might.

At the low end, you have the knuckle-draggers who react violently to hearing Marley on a "rock" station--yet if you aim too much for the Brooklyndonish high end, you start turning K-Rock into more of a AAA enterprise. So what you get is an unsatisfactory, parsimonious "middle" which trivializes Marley; and even the dentist's board milquetoasts would be confused because they didn't hear it on WABC back in the day.

That's what happens when you get a medium that's boxed itself in, culturally speaking. Bob Marley does have reach--it's just not the kind of reach that commercial radio is capable of recognizing, except through a top-to-bottom attitudinal shift that's probably beyond them at this point. Especially when you have frightened Stepford Husbands like this calling the shots...

 

[LinoNYC]

Maybe a related reality might be how the reach of this kind of "mass appeal" has gone down in sophistication and IQ point level over the past few decades--perhaps because its one-time apparent "white middle" center of gravity has more means and initiative to "opt out" than it once did.

This comment really resonates with me, now if you think that it's just radio, get into an intimate conversation with someone in the film industry. Ever since movies became a major export particularly to Asia and Latin America, the emphasis has been on boobs, bombs and car chases - it's not something industry folks will speak-of openly, too un-PC but this is no small reason why the SFX dept rules now. I've been in SAG since 1965, I do know a few people who'll talk frankly about this issue.

When it comes to the issue of "mainstream exposure", Bob Marley's endurance probably embodies the long-term breakdown of said "mainstream" as an exclusive guide to public taste

--And I can (do) make the same passionate claim for Linda jones, Jerry Butler, Richie Havens (whom I have worked with) and the Stairsteps and Impressions.

However, a slowly declining portion of my income is from jukeboxes, I deal directly with public taste (?) when I stock someone out of mainstream airplay (yes it still counts) it usually doesn't sell. All of those I named above had mainstream hits in the peak years of R&B/Soul but none sell much to today's public.

Speaking of oldies and radio, When WCBS-fm went oldies in july '72 and for approx 11 years after, they had an enormus wide range of musical ground that they covered. Gradually it was whittled down to the point that by the early 1990s I only tuned-in for the top 20 countdowns and specialty shows. "Baby Love" and "My Girl" are greats, but like most oldies listeners, I had heard them for decades. WCBS' research helped them become a stale museum.

Bob Marley does have reach--it's just not the kind of reach that commercial radio is capable of recognizing, except through a top-to-bottom attitudinal shift that's probably beyond them at this point

"At this point" If the train wreck that I suspect is coming to commercial radio in the next ten years materializes, you may see the kind of inventiveness that characterized FM's "worthless" era. Then again they may simply bring the dreadful troika of Limbaugh-Hannity-Savage over to pollute Armstrong's invention.

Lino