KRTH Top 500 Countdown issues

[cyberdad]

it is a principle of polling that is invloved here. If you do the test over with different people, and get the same results, and do it again, and get the same results, you have used replication to prove that the sample is large enough to faithfully represent "everyone" (called the "universe") and no greater sample is needed. In fact, in most cases, even 100 people is more than enough, but we overrecruit just in case a perfect balence of subsets does not show up.

Sampling is used in every aspect of American business and even politics and government. Much of the US Census data is done by a sample (the long form) and not a census, in fact. 

I use sampling, market research, and hard audience data in my business and have for years. 

Your point was clearly illustrated to me personally years ago when we did annual polling to make sure we were hitting our audience targets.  The fact of the matter was this....

For four years the polling showed that in fourteen different demo categoires nothing...and I mean nothing...ever varied by more than four percentage points from the year before.  This was with an annual nth-name sample of less than half of a percent of the universe.  In the fifth year of this excersize, we were able to create an opt-in audience database.  Since we now had captured hard data on our audience....we didn't need to do the polling anymore.

Guess what?  In all fourteen instances, the opt-in demo numbers all came in within THREE percentage points of the prior year's polling data.  Without going into minutiae, the bottom line was whether we were working with a sample of less than half of one percent, or a sample that actually turned out to be 71%, the numbers were identical from a statistical margin of error standpoint.

 

[scooty430]

"What we're hoping is for a library similiar to CBS-FM"

But why would you think what works in New York would necessarily work in L.A.?

Why not?

We have the same big restaurants, the same retail stores, the same TV shows, the same automobiles....

Same palm trees, same beaches, same weather. Yep...just the same.

Silly point. Of course the cities are different. But for the most part, what we consume as a nation is largely the same.

 

[scooty430]

it is a principle of polling that is invloved here. If you do the test over with different people, and get the same results, and do it again, and get the same results, you have used replication to prove that the sample is large enough to faithfully represent "everyone" (called the "universe") and no greater sample is needed. In fact, in most cases, even 100 people is more than enough, but we overrecruit just in case a perfect balence of subsets does not show up.

Sampling is used in every aspect of American business and even politics and government. Much of the US Census data is done by a sample (the long form) and not a census, in fact.

I use sampling, market research, and hard audience data in my business and have for years.

Your point was clearly illustrated to me personally years ago when we did annual polling to make sure we were hitting our audience targets. The fact of the matter was this....

For four years the polling showed that in fourteen different demo categoires nothing...and I mean nothing...ever varied by more than four percentage points from the year before. This was with an annual nth-name sample of less than half of a percent of the universe. In the fifth year of this excersize, we were able to create an opt-in audience database. Since we now had captured hard data on our audience....we didn't need to do the polling anymore.

Guess what? In all fourteen instances, the opt-in demo numbers all came in within THREE percentage points of the prior year's polling data. Without going into minutiae, the bottom line was whether we were working with a sample of less than half of one percent, or a sample that actually turned out to be 71%, the numbers were identical from a statistical margin of error standpoint.

Hey, no problem with sampling as a concept. So long as your sample is representative. The people willing to hang out at a Holiday Inn for a few bucks, or the type of person who is not only willing to wear a monitoring device 24/7 but remember to do so....these are subsets of the general population.

The other problem is the methodology: playing short samples of familiar hits is inevitably going to lead to a list of familiar hits. It's a circular feedback loop.

But mostly, the problem is broadcasters' goals. They do not want a core of loyal, satisfied listeners. They have zero interest in creating great art or innovation. They want a product bland enough not to offend anyone, and familiar enough to attract lots of people, 15 minutes at a time, a few times a week.

Result: boring, stagnant radio.

 

[scooty430]

How many times can one hear "My Girl" daily and every day?

I heard it four times a day every day when it was a hit, and I never tired of it. I still haven't. Every time I hear the bass riff, I become a child again. Some people pay lots of money to get that feeling. I just listen to a song.

You can't be serious.

 

[oldies76]

The other problem is the methodology: playing short samples of familiar hits is inevitably going to lead to a list of familiar hits. It's a circular feedback loop.

Result: boring, stagnant radio.

Right, basically the same songs win, because that's all people hear anyways on radio. If "new" oldies were introduced again or brought back, those would be acceptable. It breaks the monotony and provides something fresh to your audience. Like CHR providing new songs and dumping the unpopular ones out, classic hits should rotate the common "well-tested" songs with non-testers to make the station sound appealing.

 

[davideduardo]

Hey, no problem with sampling as a concept. So long as your sample is representative. The people willing to hang out at a Holiday Inn for a few bucks, or the type of person who is not only willing to wear a monitoring device 24/7 but remember to do so....these are subsets of the general population.

The differences are relatively insignificant, even though they exist. There have been quite a few studies done where people who did not want to participate in research have been researched (by asking why they did not participate, and stimulating curiousity which leads to the ability to find out, even in limited form, behaviours that can be compared to research friendly people) and the differences are relatively minuscule. In fact, the only hard to research group that does have very different behaviour is the wealthy, but that is a tiny, tiny percentage of the consumer universe.

In any case, advertisers want to reach the same people who are broadly likely to participate in research, so the results are valid for the use given to radio and media research.

The other problem is the methodology: playing short samples of familiar hits is inevitably going to lead to a list of familiar hits. It's a circular feedback loop.

If a song can not be recognized within 8 seconds based on its hook, it is unfamiliar. Most adult stations don't play new music, so unfamiliarity is a totally undesirable quality. If a song is not familiar, it can not be a favorite... and what radio tries to do... because this is what listeners specifically want from music stations... is to play familiar music.

So, yes, familiarity is an absolute must in programming library based stations. Nothing has been proven to cause tune out faster than either unfamiliar songs or bad songs. "I don't know it" or "I just hate it" are the two biggest radio killers... much, much more than commercials.

But mostly, the problem is broadcasters' goals. They do not want a core of loyal, satisfied listeners.

To the contrary. The goal of every station is to have lots of listners and to have them listen as long as possible.

They have zero interest in creating great art or innovation.

As they learned in the early West, pioneers get shot, and art is for museums. All mass media is a mixture of skill, talent, a little art, and a big knowledge of popular taste...

They want a product bland enough not to offend anyone, and familiar enough to attract lots of people, 15 minutes at a time, a few times a week.

To the contrary, we try to get people to listen as often as possible, and for as long as possible. If you don't believe that, look at what the leading station in time spent listening is among 18-49 persons in LA out of all the top 20 rated stations... it's adult hits KRCD, which beats all others in the immensely competitive LA market. It does so because we do everything we can to encourage frequent listening... the listeners who prefer it over all others listen a huge 10 hours a week!

Result: boring, stagnant radio.

Just the opposite, in fact.

 

[TheBigA]

You can't be serious.

Hey look! It's John McEnroe!

I'm very serious. The classic Top 40 stations that first introduced these hits in the 60s and 70s had very small playlists. Smaller playlists, in fact, than today's Oldies stations.

 

[SuperRadioFan]

If a song is not familiar, it can not be a favorite...

I always have a problem wrapping my arms around this concept. HOW does any song ever become a favorite? For each listener at one time in their life will hear what might become their "favorite" for the very first time. Lots of album cuts that are not new played on Internet stations and once in a while on an over-the-air station I hear for the first time.

 

[davideduardo]

If a song is not familiar, it can not be a favorite...

I always have a problem wrapping my arms around this concept. HOW does any song ever become a favorite? For each listener at one time in their life will hear what might become their "favorite" for the very first time. Lots of album cuts that are not new played on Internet stations and once in a while on an over-the-air station I hear for the first time.

There are very few people who want to hear a lot of new music, and they are mostly in the younger demos.

So stations appealing to 25+ and older will introduce fewer songs, if any. Many base their entire format on the memories attached to music from another time... oldies, classic hits, standards, classic rock, classic country. Other formats, like AC, add very few currents and then only when they have proven some initial strength.

When you talk to listeners, nearly all of them will tell you they want to hear very little new music, and then mostly by artists they already know. They'll talk about singing along with the lyrics of their favorite songs, and things like that. When asked what they do when they hear a new song, they say they tune out if they are near the radio. That's why stations try to sell through new music to give a reason for listening to the unfamiliar.

And me know by looking at the moment to moment scores on MediaMonitors that the new songs lose meters. Many of us at one time thought that playing the newest songs first won us acclaim and ratings. In most formats, it wins you a pink slip, and that's how the majority of us programmers learned about tight lists of very good songs and not much that is unfamiliar. The programmer who plays too much new and too deep a library not only will get fired, too, but will likely bring down the careers of lots of co-workers, as well.

 

[Zeb Norris]

But mostly, the problem is broadcasters' goals. They do not want a core of loyal, satisfied listeners. They have zero interest in creating great art or innovation. They want a product bland enough not to offend anyone, and familiar enough to attract lots of people, 15 minutes at a time, a few times a week.

Result: boring, stagnant radio.

Ahem.

I've been in radio for close to 33 years, for more than a few as a Program Director. I AM interested in creating great art AND generating a core of loyal satisfied listeners. I've spent my LIFE working on these things, as well as creating radio that is successful financially. I could have been a Doctor or a lawyer, but I chose to pass on the big bucks to work in the area I LOVE.

Who the bleep are YOU and what the bleep have YOU done to make great radio? Anything? Bueller?

As Bart Simpson would say, eat my shorts.

 

[SuperRadioFan]

If a song is not familiar, it can not be a favorite...

I always have a problem wrapping my arms around this concept. HOW does any song ever become a favorite? For each listener at one time in their life will hear what might become their "favorite" for the very first time. Lots of album cuts that are not new played on Internet stations and once in a while on an over-the-air station I hear for the first time.

There are very few people who want to hear a lot of new music, and they are mostly in the younger demos.

So stations appealing to 25+ and older will introduce fewer songs, if any. Many base their entire format on the memories attached to music from another time... oldies, classic hits, standards, classic rock, classic country. Other formats, like AC, add very few currents and then only when they have proven some initial strength.

When you talk to listeners, nearly all of them will tell you they want to hear very little new music, and then mostly by artists they already know. They'll talk about singing along with the lyrics of their favorite songs, and things like that. When asked what they do when they hear a new song, they say they tune out if they are near the radio. That's why stations try to sell through new music to give a reason for listening to the unfamiliar.

And me know by looking at the moment to moment scores on MediaMonitors that the new songs lose meters. Many of us at one time thought that playing the newest songs first won us acclaim and ratings. In most formats, it wins you a pink slip, and that's how the majority of us programmers learned about tight lists of very good songs and not much that is unfamiliar. The programmer who plays too much new and too deep a library not only will get fired, too, but will likely bring down the careers of lots of co-workers, as well.

David, I have this strange feeling you really didn't answer my question.

 

[scooty430]

You can't be serious.

Hey look! It's John McEnroe!

I'm very serious. The classic Top 40 stations that first introduced these hits in the 60s and 70s had very small playlists. Smaller playlists, in fact, than today's Oldies stations.

Yes, they had small playlists, as do KIIS and KROQ today. But the music was NEW. Apples and oranges.

I can buy that you wanted to hear "My Girl" four times a day when it was a new song. I can say the same thing about "We Will Rock You" when I was in fourth grade in 1977. I would sit around all day waiting for it to come on, which it did, about once every two hours. If they had played it more, I would have been happier.

But I definitely don't buy that for the past forty years, you've been hearing "My Girl" four times a day (or even once) and you are not sick of it yet. Even less believable is that after all those listens it makes you think of those days in the 60s and gives you a youthful buzz.

When I hear "We Will Rock You" today, I don't think about banging out the rhythm on the lunchroom tables at elementary school. It has been played at every sporting event, on every classic rock station, and now these JACK stations.... It has lost any connection to that time.

When "We Will Rock You" comes on the radio today, I change the station.

 

[scooty430]

But mostly, the problem is broadcasters' goals. They do not want a core of loyal, satisfied listeners. They have zero interest in creating great art or innovation. They want a product bland enough not to offend anyone, and familiar enough to attract lots of people, 15 minutes at a time, a few times a week.

Result: boring, stagnant radio.

Ahem.

I've been in radio for close to 33 years, for more than a few as a Program Director. I AM interested in creating great art AND generating a core of loyal satisfied listeners. I've spent my LIFE working on these things, as well as creating radio that is successful financially. I could have been a Doctor or a lawyer, but I chose to pass on the big bucks to work in the area I LOVE.

Who the bleep are YOU and what the bleep have YOU done to make great radio? Anything? Bueller?

As Bart Simpson would say, eat my shorts.

I'm a listener, that's who I am.

And clearly you do not care what I, or any of the other millions of dissatisfied listeners think. You are too busy patting yourself on the back.

Again, I invite you and any other radio people to get online and type a few phrases into Google like "Radio sucks" or "Who listens to radio anymore" or anything along those lines.

Then you will see what we all think.

 

[davideduardo]

Yes, they had small playlists, as do KIIS and KROQ today. But the music was NEW. Apples and oranges.

CHR's today have much larger lists than the early Top 40's of the 50's and early to mid 60's... in other words, the first 12 to 15 years of the fromat, where Top 40 meant 40 songs. Similarly, the rejuvination of CHR on FM in the 70's with formats like Hot Hits and its copies was based on only 30 to 40 songs, too.

I can buy that you wanted to hear "My Girl" four times a day when it was a new song.

Likely it was played by most stations 12 to 15 times a day... a 90 minute turn on the very tiop songs was not uncommon in Top 40's.

But I definitely don't buy that for the past forty years, you've been hearing "My Girl" four times a day (or even once) and you are not sick of it yet. Even less believable is that after all those listens it makes you think of those days in the 60s and gives you a youthful buzz.

If you were to sit down with individual heavy users of Oldies / Classic Hits you would find that they also listen to other stations, so not all their radio time is spent on oldies. In fact, even the heavy users listen about 10 to 12 hours a week at the maximimum (true of most formats as a broad generalization) to the favorite station (In PPM with its increased accuracy and lack of rounding, this is like 6 to 7 hours). So even if the staiton plays a song 10 times a week, the average heavy listener will hear it about every 10 to 12 days. The lighter rotation songs will come out even less often in each listener's experience.

You would also learn from chatting that one of the principal things about oldies as an attraction is the good feelings the format engenders overall, feelings about a good time in life. It's not each song, although the songs also have to be strongly evocative, but about the feel of the favorite songs of the times before every day was spent filing papers all day long or putting the same part on the same device all day long... and worrying about bills and health and such (I can say it now, about 15 years later, that one of my most illuminating experiences like this was for WBIG in Washington, DC... amazing stories of how the station brought joy into peoples complicated and routine lives).

 

[Zeb Norris]

But mostly, the problem is broadcasters' goals. They do not want a core of loyal, satisfied listeners. They have zero interest in creating great art or innovation. They want a product bland enough not to offend anyone, and familiar enough to attract lots of people, 15 minutes at a time, a few times a week.

Result: boring, stagnant radio.

Ahem.

I've been in radio for close to 33 years, for more than a few as a Program Director. I AM interested in creating great art AND generating a core of loyal satisfied listeners. I've spent my LIFE working on these things, as well as creating radio that is successful financially. I could have been a Doctor or a lawyer, but I chose to pass on the big bucks to work in the area I LOVE.

Who the bleep are YOU and what the bleep have YOU done to make great radio? Anything? Bueller?

As Bart Simpson would say, eat my shorts.

I'm a listener, that's who I am.

And clearly you do not care what I, or any of the other millions of dissatisfied listeners think. You are too busy patting yourself on the back.

Again, I invite you and any other radio people to get online and type a few phrases into Google like "Radio sucks" or "Who listens to radio anymore" or anything along those lines.

Then you will see what we all think.

Close, but no cigar.

You made a false blanket assertion. And even YOU don't believe it. I just saw where you were saying nice things about Boston's Classical station.

When you (or anyone) make blanket assertions about the motives of others, you're just BOUND to run into trouble.

But you're right about me not caring about YOUR opinion. Because I also read where you were lamenting the absence of the Chipmunks at Christmas time...

Which proves you have no taste, and you're out of the demo.

 

[scooty430]

Hey, no problem with sampling as a concept. So long as your sample is representative. The people willing to hang out at a Holiday Inn for a few bucks, or the type of person who is not only willing to wear a monitoring device 24/7 but remember to do so....these are subsets of the general population.

The differences are relatively insignificant, even though they exist. There have been quite a few studies done where people who did not want to participate in research have been researched (by asking why they did not participate, and stimulating curiousity which leads to the ability to find out, even in limited form, behaviours that can be compared to research friendly people) and the differences are relatively minuscule. In fact, the only hard to research group that does have very different behaviour is the wealthy, but that is a tiny, tiny percentage of the consumer universe.

In any case, advertisers want to reach the same people who are broadly likely to participate in research, so the results are valid for the use given to radio and media research.

The other problem is the methodology: playing short samples of familiar hits is inevitably going to lead to a list of familiar hits. It's a circular feedback loop.

If a song can not be recognized within 8 seconds based on its hook, it is unfamiliar. Most adult stations don't play new music, so unfamiliarity is a totally undesirable quality. If a song is not familiar, it can not be a favorite... and what radio tries to do... because this is what listeners specifically want from music stations... is to play familiar music.

So, yes, familiarity is an absolute must in programming library based stations. Nothing has been proven to cause tune out faster than either unfamiliar songs or bad songs. "I don't know it" or "I just hate it" are the two biggest radio killers... much, much more than commercials.

But mostly, the problem is broadcasters' goals. They do not want a core of loyal, satisfied listeners.

To the contrary. The goal of every station is to have lots of listners and to have them listen as long as possible.

They have zero interest in creating great art or innovation.

As they learned in the early West, pioneers get shot, and art is for museums. All mass media is a mixture of skill, talent, a little art, and a big knowledge of popular taste...

They want a product bland enough not to offend anyone, and familiar enough to attract lots of people, 15 minutes at a time, a few times a week.

To the contrary, we try to get people to listen as often as possible, and for as long as possible. If you don't believe that, look at what the leading station in time spent listening is among 18-49 persons in LA out of all the top 20 rated stations... it's adult hits KRCD, which beats all others in the immensely competitive LA market. It does so because we do everything we can to encourage frequent listening... the listeners who prefer it over all others listen a huge 10 hours a week!

Result: boring, stagnant radio.

Just the opposite, in fact.

I can't really comment on 103.9, as I haven't listened to them since they were KACE, with their very unique R and B Oldies format. Boy, do I miss that station, especially the very funky Saturday Night 70s show.

You may in fact be doing a wonderful job with the Spanish Oldies on 103.9. I have no basis for judging that kind of music. Certainly if you are delivering ratings and the sales people are selling ads, then you are succeeding in that way.

However, if your playlist is under 500, then I can tell you that, from an aesthetic standpoint, it is probably very repetitive and boring to listen to all day. I don't know how many titles are in your regular library over the course of a year.

My guess is that the big "time spent listening" numbers are from people listening while working. Perfect for a station with familiar oldies.

 

[davideduardo]

Again, I invite you and any other radio people to get online and type a few phrases into Google like "Radio sucks" or "Who listens to radio anymore" or anything along those lines.

Hate sites require a couple of bucks to register by one disgrunteld person... maybe someone who wants local (bad) bands played on the radio.

Heck, I had a customer service problem and registered www.???????sucks.com and told the company I was going to put up a message board for other angry customers... my problem got resolution at blazing speed after they verified the registry!

But I never registered a site to praise companies I love to do business with. We expect to be satisfied... but get angry when we are not happy.

A few hate sites is as meaningless as trying to get messages by playing old LP's backwards.

Then you will see what we all think.

"We" is a lot of people. You are speaking for yourself, a universe of one. Those of us in radio don't look at n=1 situations.

 

[scooty430]

Yes, they had small playlists, as do KIIS and KROQ today. But the music was NEW. Apples and oranges.

CHR's today have much larger lists than the early Top 40's of the 50's and early to mid 60's... in other words, the first 12 to 15 years of the fromat, where Top 40 meant 40 songs. Similarly, the rejuvination of CHR on FM in the 70's with formats like Hot Hits and its copies was based on only 30 to 40 songs, too.

I can buy that you wanted to hear "My Girl" four times a day when it was a new song.

Likely it was played by most stations 12 to 15 times a day... a 90 minute turn on the very tiop songs was not uncommon in Top 40's.

But I definitely don't buy that for the past forty years, you've been hearing "My Girl" four times a day (or even once) and you are not sick of it yet. Even less believable is that after all those listens it makes you think of those days in the 60s and gives you a youthful buzz.

If you were to sit down with individual heavy users of Oldies / Classic Hits you would find that they also listen to other stations, so not all their radio time is spent on oldies. In fact, even the heavy users listen about 10 to 12 hours a week at the maximimum (true of most formats as a broad generalization) to the favorite station (In PPM with its increased accuracy and lack of rounding, this is like 6 to 7 hours). So even if the staiton plays a song 10 times a week, the average heavy listener will hear it about every 10 to 12 days. The lighter rotation songs will come out even less often in each listener's experience.

You would also learn from chatting that one of the principal things about oldies as an attraction is the good feelings the format engenders overall, feelings about a good time in life. It's not each song, although the songs also have to be strongly evocative, but about the feel of the favorite songs of the times before every day was spent filing papers all day long or putting the same part on the same device all day long... and worrying about bills and health and such (I can say it now, about 15 years later, that one of my most illuminating experiences like this was for WBIG in Washington, DC... amazing stories of how the station brought joy into peoples complicated and routine lives).

I do agree with you, David, about your last point: the "feel" of an Oldies station is a big factor.

That's why XM's sixties channel got such big raves compared with the Sirius version: XM had the wacky jocks, the PAMS jingles, etc.

But do you need a small playlist to evoke that feel? Nah. I argue you can get that "feel" just as easily on WLNG with 10,000 titles as you can on K-Earth. Both use jingles and old music to evoke pleasant memories. But 'LNG plays the big faves likes My Girl AND stuff you maybe missed, or forgot about. (And yes, often you hear a song that makes you groan, but another song is on its way, and that groan-inducing song will not be back for weeks, or months.)

 

[scooty430]

Again, I invite you and any other radio people to get online and type a few phrases into Google like "Radio sucks" or "Who listens to radio anymore" or anything along those lines.

Hate sites require a couple of bucks to register by one disgrunteld person... maybe someone who wants local (bad) bands played on the radio.

Heck, I had a customer service problem and registered www.???????sucks.com and told the company I was going to put up a message board for other angry customers... my problem got resolution at blazing speed after they verified the registry!

But I never registered a site to praise companies I love to do business with. We expect to be satisfied... but get angry when we are not happy.

A few hate sites is as meaningless as trying to get messages by playing old LP's backwards.

Then you will see what we all think.

"We" is a lot of people. You are speaking for yourself, a universe of one. Those of us in radio don't look at n=1 situations.

Hate sites?

I'm not really sure what a hate site is, though I guess a google search might bring up whatever it is you're talking about.

I'm referring to normal message boards, personal blogs, review sites, places like that.

I'm also referring to articles published in established publications, such as the Wired article I excerpted from. Try places like Slate, Salon, NPR, NY Times, LA Times, Time, Rolling Stone.....

You'll find people expressing not so much "hate" for radio as disappointment, nonchalance, or what one could call "love lost."

 

[davideduardo]

I can't really comment on 103.9, as I haven't listened to them since they were KACE, with their very unique R and B Oldies format. Boy, do I miss that station, especially the very funky Saturday Night 70s show.

As ususal, you praise a highly unsuccessful station. KACE was sold because of low ratings and a poor signal.

However, if your playlist is under 500, then I can tell you that, from an aesthetic standpoint, it is probably very repetitive and boring to listen to all day.

None of us are in the aesthethics business. We are in business to create stations that attract listeners because of good programming so we can sell advertising.

I don't know how many titles are in your regular library over the course of a year.

Our main draw is the talent, 24/7, which is friendly and, well, as the descriptor says, talented of their own right.

But, like most stations, we do not rest the library. What we play today is what we always play, revised only when we get listener feedback from testing. The library is more than double...way more... what you use as an example above. But, if fewer songs "worked" we would play fewer songs.

My guess is that the big "time spent listening" numbers are from people listening while working. Perfect for a station with familiar oldies.

And, like ususal, your guess would be totally wrong. The greatest listening (when we could see work vs. home) is in the home. Since the station has a lot of talk, it's not background enough for a lot of "communal" work situations.