KCKC FM - Large Playlist Success ?

[davideduardo]

It feeds on familiarity to the point of making folks sick of their favorite songs and artists, thanks to gross overplay.

That's your opinion. Stations see "overplay" when they do library research, and either rest or slow down rotations on songs that have burn.

Our local Classic Rock station in Phoenix, KSLX 100.7, has an absolute obsession with Ozzie (with and without Black Sabbath), AC/DC, Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd. They don't necessarily repeat the same songs from those artists over and over, but those five acts account for a good percentage of their broadcast day. After 40 years, I'm finally sick and tired of Pink Floyd The Wall, and I was never an Ozzie or AC/DC fan to begin with.

Yet it is likely that their research shows the songs you mention to be high scoring. Stations really don't play "artists", they play "songs". If a lot of songs by certain artists test well, you will hear those songs often.

Their slogan should be "KSLX: Making you sick of your favorite songs since 1986."

It's tied for #2 billing (with KMXP and KNIX) for all Phoenix music stations.

 

[rparky54]

But stations need to be attractive to 34-49 . So where does this leave us? The preferred demo is now 80’s. However, these formats are quickly aging out. Will 90’s be the next format winner? My instinct is a big no. 90’s radio was the most part horrid,

That was the age of consolidation and deregulation of the industry. Clear Channel and a few other sharks swallowed up almost all of the locally owned stations.

 

[davideduardo]

That was the age of consolidation and deregulation of the industry. Clear Channel and a few other sharks swallowed up almost all of the locally owned stations.

No, they did not. Out of over 12,000 stations on the air in that era, only about 2000 went to the big 5 consolidators.

And a huge percentage of the consolidation era purchases were first 7/7 station groups selling to another group. Groups like Keller & Box's EZ Communications went to a bigger consolidator.

 

[KeithE4]

Yet it is likely that their research shows the songs you mention to be high scoring. Stations really don't play "artists", they play "songs". If a lot of songs by certain artists test well, you will hear those songs often.

KSLX markets itself as a station that "plays careers" rather than songs. That means that while they may play one or two Led Zeppelin songs an hour, they won't be the same songs. Which is good, although Stairway to Heaven still gets at least one play per day.

It's tied for #2 billing (with KMXP and KNIX) for all Phoenix music stations.

Which makes Mother Hubbard very happy, I'm sure.

 

[Tibbs4]

Gotta question for all you being over all these songs. IF you programmed a station, roughly how many songs would be on your playlist?

 

[TheBigA]

Gotta question for all you being over all these songs. IF you programmed a station, roughly how many songs would be on your playlist?

Depends on the format.

 

[davideduardo]

Gotta question for all you being over all these songs. IF you programmed a station, roughly how many songs would be on your playlist?

However many songs my listeners gave "passing" scores to on a music test.

 

[Tibbs4]

My point is, we address this every day. How many songs DJs hate. How many listeners hate so many things about radio stations. Radio is about a lot of WE’s. Not ME’s. Me’s have plenty of options to play their own music and do their own thing. And if it was on the radio instead of apps and phones, WE all would be complaining about all the bad music. While radio is not perfect, while it is not self centric, still look at the substantial reach, success and profit it is generating despite a lot of competition. Which, I think everyone agrees. Now on with my first Christmas song by Rick Dees dedicated to Firepoint.

 

[KeithE4]

However many songs my listeners gave "passing" scores to on a music test.

But what percentage of actual listeners participate in music tests? 10%? 30%? 50%? For a large-market station, even 10% would be a big number. I'm not sure I'd go with results from just 10% to make my playlist.

 

[TheBigA]

But what percentage of actual listeners participate in music tests? 10%? 30%? 50%? For a large-market station, even 10% would be a big number. I'm not sure I'd go with results from just 10% to make my playlist.

I hate to break it to you, but a lot of research is based on very small percentages. The way you do research isn't about the number of people, but about the groups each person represents. This is basic statistics. Your car, home, and health insurance is based on this kind of research.

 

[davideduardo]

But what percentage of actual listeners participate in music tests? 10%? 30%? 50%? For a large-market station, even 10% would be a big number. I'm not sure I'd go with results from just 10% to make my playlist.

Nielsen has a couple of thousand PPM participants in LA, a market with over 11 million people 6+. Every ad agency accepts the results as being as accurate as required for the spending of billions of dollars in ad budgets.

A music particular station in LA that has been in the top 5 in 25-54 almost always during the last 27 years tests regularly with about 100 P1 listeners.

All of us who have run research companies have done tests to see accuracy. When I have tested 200, 300, 400 people I always find that the results are the same after 80 or so respondents. And if you test 400 people (at a cost of over $80,000) and then randomly select batches of 80, they all come out the same.

The referenced station has a cume of about 1.4 million. To test 10% of them, 140,000 people, the cost would be $3,000,000 which is about 15% of the station's annual billing. And you would get no better results than with 80 to 100 people selected / recruited properly.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio is about a lot of WE’s. Not ME’s. Me’s have plenty of options to play their own music and do their own thing.

That's why I asked the format question, Tibbs. I'm at a point where there are some formats that will never get to the WE point. To them, the music has become so individual that it doesn't work on the radio. It used to be that radio played music because it attracted a mass audience. Not anymore. And when I go to music conferences, I hear speakers talking about making music that speaks to a small narrow fan base, rather than filling stadiums. I see record labels signing lots of artists who will never have radio success. But they attract streams and sell merch. The label gets a share of the artists' revenue streams. So they don't care about airplay or the size of playlists.

 

[kwthom]

A music particular station in LA that has been in the top 5 in 25-54 almost always during the last 27 years tests regularly with about 100 P1 listeners.

Does this test population in market #2 work the same (accuracy, reliability, repeatability) in market #60 - or market #90?

 

[Kent]

But what percentage of actual listeners participate in music tests? 10%? 30%? 50%? For a large-market station, even 10% would be a big number. I'm not sure I'd go with results from just 10% to make my playlist.

As some of the others have pointed out, music tests, when they're performed correctly, are done much like any other standardized tests. They control for members of the listening population who are underrepresented in their surveys. Plus, the general rule of programming is that not playing a song doesn't hurt you. That may not be entirely true in every format, but, generally, if a song doesn't rate as a hit with the entire group, it doesn't make the playlist. If a song isn't a hit, you'll likely know it with a small sample so long as that sample is representative. When talking statistics, confidence intervals almost always err conservatively. A 99.7% confidence rate doesn't leave much to chance. Do the tests sometimes yield bad results? I'm sure they do, but it's rare.

 

[CTListener]

Does this test population in market #2 work the same (accuracy, reliability, repeatability) in market #60 - or market #90?

Statistics professionals will tell you such sampling is accurate, reliable and repeatable wherever it's tested. Critics point to unexpected election results as proof that polling is smoke and mirrors, but every poll comes with a margin of error, and all those outcomes fell within it.

 

[tall_guy1]

That's your opinion. Stations see "overplay" when they do library research, and either rest or slow down rotations on songs that have burn.

How exactly does that work? Isnt billie jean overplayed around the country, for instance?

 

[gr8oldies]

How exactly does that work? Isnt billie jean overplayed around the country, for instance?

It's one of my alarms, but I don't hear it on the radio that often.

 

[Kent]

How exactly does that work? Isnt billie jean overplayed around the country, for instance?

No, it's not. You might not like Billie Jean, but it's still among some Gen X'ers' favorite songs. It also doesn't make enough people tune the station out to make resting it or changing its category worthwhile. That song's almost 40 years old, and I could still listen to the Thriller album on repeat.

Here's a personal example of a song I think is overplayed but research suggests otherwise: I've never liked John Mellencamp's "Jack & Diane." When I'm in a classic hits mood and am listening at work, I'm almost guaranteed to hear it at some point, and I will change the station every single time. There is, however, not enough of me to go around when it comes to getting classic hits stations to pull the song. Most other people my age are jamming along to the beginning guitar rift and singing, "Oh, yeah, life goes on," at the top of their lungs when they think no one is around. If I never hear that song again the rest of my life, I would still think it was overplayed. I'm, however, an outlier. If enough people come around to my point of view, it'll be pulled in short order. I can't imagine I'll ever come around to the other viewpoint. So, most everyone else probably won't come to my side.

 

[kwthom]

Statistics professionals will tell you such sampling is accurate, reliable and repeatable wherever it's tested. Critics point to unexpected election results as proof that polling is smoke and mirrors, but every poll comes with a margin of error, and all those outcomes fell within it.

I know the statistics professional would say that - I'm asking the station operations manager for their perspective in the accuracy of the polling results. After all, he's the one spending the money to have the sample taken. If that sample leads to a 0.5 gain in the next two or three books, then it's paid off.

I mean, it may well be 'good enough' for use in market #90; by the time it gets to market #140...

 

[ScottBurns]

No, they did not. Out of over 12,000 stations on the air in that era, only about 2000 went to the big 5 consolidators.

And a huge percentage of the consolidation era purchases were first 7/7 station groups selling to another group. Groups like Keller & Box's EZ Communications went to a bigger consolidator.

But this is only because a huge chunk of those 12,000 stations are in rural areas and in tiny markets. Most of us live in a top 100 market. The same general owners are in all 100. It's difficult to find a market in the top 100 that does not have iHeart, Cumulus, or Audacy represented.