KRTH Top 500 Countdown

[Bryan Simmons]

The first commercial station I pulled an air shift at was KROI-FM in Sacramento in 1976 and at that time it was automated with a Schafer 800 thumbwheel controlled brain that had reel to reels for music and cart carousels for spots and program elements. We affectionately named the machine “the beast”. We did call it voice tracking back then. Actually we used to call it "noise tracking" as a joke. KROI was a rock station and we didn't do too badly ratings wise, though we still lagged behind our sister station and market leader 1240 KROY.

I also worked for Concept Productions run by former KFIG Fresno Program Director Dick Wagner. Most of his talent came from San Francisco, but many more came from Sacramento. He provided all of a station’s music and voice tracking with custom tailoring for each station. He had several formats, Country, AOR, Top 40 and what was then called Pop Adult. Like most of his competitors he closed up shop when satellite formats put him out of business. It was a nice way to make a few extra bucks and really a very pleasant company to work for. So yes, there was more than just Beautiful Music when it came to automated stations.

Bryan:
Thanks for mentioning both the Schafer 800 and Concept Productions...I programmed an FM using both (an A/C format) in Bishop, California from 1974-1976. And, I left there for KUKI, Ukiah, where we had an automated FM running Drake-Chenault's country format.

---Michael Hagerty

Actually I should thank you, I learn a lot from your posts. Same with Mr. Eduardo, although I think he can be a little heavy with the facts & figures. Myself, I don't think calguy was too far off the mark with regards to the bulk of automated stations being beautiful music. There certainly weren't many "live" ones that I can recall and with many markets there were multiple stations in that particular format. So it goes without saying that at one time they may have outnumbered their automated contemporary counterparts.

B

 

[scooty430]

I hope all of these big radio/media corporations take a dump in the recession so radio can maybe go back to what it was. Yeah, one can only hope.....

Yeah, we can only hope, but I'm afraid the glory days of radio and the time when DJ's could pick their own songs without reprecussions are long, long gone. Hey..there is a solution though, connect our MP3 players to our stereos and playback any song, in any order to our likings. Or, have an in-home studio and play DJ for a time and re-live the good days.

It'll never be the same though....we just have to accept this nonsense, as much as we hate it!

It's great producing my own A to Z special though...456 hits, just through the letters A & B so far. Now, this is sweet!

What's sad is that you can no longer go to radio to hear much NEW music. New meaning either literally new, or "new to you" as in that old song you missed out on the first time, were too young for, or now have a new appreciation for.

The "reserach" means that you are given what you already know, because only that rates high. That means "new" music sounds like last year's Green Day hit, because they've signed 8 bands that sound like Green Day. And as for "oldies," (or classic hits or "today's oldies" or whatever lame term they're slapping on it now) you are going to be given ones you've heard many many times. Because only those can rate high in research.

Sure, you can get music from ipods, Pandora, itunes, blogs... In many ways it's just as creative and vibrant, and the listener is WAY more empowered to choose and get involved. And for those under 25, this is the ONLY way to get music. Radio is completely, utterly irrelevant. Like a manual typewriter in the attic.

But gathering music through computers just isn't the same. It's a little more diffused, decentralized... Not as local, immediate, and alive.

 

[calguy]

Radio is completely, utterly irrelevant. Like a manual typewriter in the attic.

I keep hearing this particular statement being thrown around, but I find it a little hard to believe considering the number of people who still listen to radio on a daily basis. If it’s irrelevant, why do you still participate in these Radio-Info boards?

Radio has problems, but it's still kicking. It's just waiting for the next visionary to come along and reinvent the medium. Clearly satellite radio isn’t cutting it and internet radio while being hailed as the next big thing isn’t even close to being everywhere it needs to be, so for now real radio is still getting the job done, it’s just not on the cutting edge anymore. Actually, is it radio’s fault that the record companies can’t provide good product? No, it may be radio’s fault that it hasn’t broken the old ways of doing business with the record companies. Radio needs to establish new ways of finding the product without waiting for some no-nothing at a record company to hand it to them. It’s obvious that record companies don’t have a clue, they proved that already, but radio doesn’t need to go down with them. It needs to break free of them.

But this thread is about KRTH as I recall and about that, I look at the inclusion of newer music to be one way that KRTH can grow younger numbers. Why complain about nothing really new on KRTH though? It is an oldies station after all. There are other formants that should be playing new music, but an oldies station does just that, plays oldies. As for their presentation being out of date, since when is having jocks that are smooth and can actually do a proper talk up a bad thing. It’s certainly better than listening to some high pitched voice deliver a sloppy talk up over a Green Day tune. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with jingles either. They have their place and they do what they have always done. Sing the call letters, bridge a gap and keep the station’s logo rolling around in your brain. Let me again remind you, KRTH is doing quite well in the ratings, so those who don’t like what they’re doing are in the minority…

 

[davideduardo]

What's sad is that you can no longer go to radio to hear much NEW music.

Now that is just totally untrue.

Let's look at the prime years of Top 40, late 50's to mid-60's. Adds might be from 1 to even 5 songs a week, with the average probably being 3. That's about 150 to maybe 200 a year.

Top 40 in many of those years might have 30% to even 50% of the audience in some places. The example I have used before, Cleveland (then a top 10 market) had 8 stations, 3 Top 40, 3 MOR and 2 r&b... so half the audience in that huge market heard just 3 to 4 new songs a week, or 12 to 15 a month... since the 3 Top 40s added the same songs.

Fast forward. The same market now has more than double the number of viable music stations, more than half of which play currents. Let's say that 12 stations play some currents, and they add from 2 to 10 songs a month. Perhaps the average would be, on the low side, 4 a month... but since there is little format duplication, that means somewhere around 40 new songs a month being exposed in different genres.

The difference is that, in 1960, Top 40 was a massive format, with a third to a half of all listening. Today, no format average even a 10 share... meaning that different kinds of new music are added to different formats each reaching smaller subsets.

But lots more music is being exposed.

The "reserach" means that you are given what you already know, because only that rates high.

Backwards, again. What research says is that most listeners, and nearly everyone over 25, wants to hear what they know. So the familiar songs score high, and the rest don't.

And for those under 25, this is the ONLY way to get music. Radio is completely, utterly irrelevant. Like a manual typewriter in the attic.

So explain why Amp in LA has accumulated abobut 2.5 million listeners, mostly 12 to 24, in just a few months? And why 93% of teens and young adults listen to radio? Sure, there are other alternatives that never existed before. But radio is part of the new media alternatives.

 

[scooty430]

Radio is completely, utterly irrelevant. Like a manual typewriter in the attic.

I keep hearing this particular statement being thrown around, but I find it a little hard to believe considering the number of people who still listen to radio on a daily basis. If it’s irrelevant, why do you still participate in these Radio-Info boards?

Radio has problems, but it's still kicking. It's just waiting for the next visionary to come along and reinvent the medium. Clearly satellite radio isn’t cutting it and internet radio while being hailed as the next big thing isn’t even close to being everywhere it needs to be, so for now real radio is still getting the job done, it’s just not on the cutting edge anymore. Actually, is it radio’s fault that the record companies can’t provide good product? No, it may be radio’s fault that it hasn’t broken the old ways of doing business with the record companies. Radio needs to establish new ways of finding the product without waiting for some no-nothing at a record company to hand it to them. It’s obvious that record companies don’t have a clue, they proved that already, but radio doesn’t need to go down with them. It needs to break free of them.

But this thread is about KRTH as I recall and about that, I look at the inclusion of newer music to be one way that KRTH can grow younger numbers. Why complain about nothing really new on KRTH though? It is an oldies station after all. There are other formants that should be playing new music, but an oldies station does just that, plays oldies. As for their presentation being out of date, since when is having jocks that are smooth and can actually do a proper talk up a bad thing. It’s certainly better than listening to some high pitched voice deliver a sloppy talk up over a Green Day tune. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with jingles either. They have their place and they do what they have always done. Sing the call letters, bridge a gap and keep the station’s logo rolling around in your brain. Let me again remind you, KRTH is doing quite well in the ratings, so those who don’t like what they’re doing are in the minority…

I think we are agreeing on certain points here. I am smack dab IN K-Earth's desired demo, and I did NOT grow up with those jingles, but I love them. I think everyone in L.A. at least knows the jingles - they are part of the landscape. That was my point to DE: the retro presentation and "unhip" factor are kind of a plus, if presented properly.

But MY point is that adding lightweight Cyndi Lauper and Phil Collins tunes, ones which have been played ad nauseum on every light FM outlet in the country, is perhaps not the best way to push forward into the 80's.

I also think the decision to keep moving up the "cut off date" (first jettisoning pre-64, now starting to limit the late 60's) is short-sighted and silly. That music is timeless, and it FITS the format of K-Earth. Keep the old - MORE of the old, and add some new SPARINGLY.

But my worry is that they will keep moving K-Earth "forward in time" until it sounds like JACK. And we already have JACK.

 

[oldies76]

But this thread is about KRTH as I recall and about that, I look at the inclusion of newer music to be one way that KRTH can grow younger numbers. Why complain about nothing really new on KRTH though? It is an oldies station after all. There are other formants that should be playing new music, but an oldies station does just that, plays oldies.

That's the problem, the BIG problem..KRTH rarely ever adds "new music" meaning "new oldies"...the "other" hundreds of oldies that are national hits, that WCBS plays, that most other oldies stations play, but that KRTH does not play. They stick to the same, darn 400 songs and that's it! Is that real oldies radio??

Ok, they add some "new oldies" to attract younger numbers...that's fine, but don't just play those same songs. Keep adding more, expand the playlist and make things interesting.

The complaint isn't about the songs, it's the presentation of them, the stagnation of them and the lack of creativity with them.

 

[oldies76]

I also think the decision to keep moving up the "cut off date" (first jettisoning pre-64, now starting to limit the late 60's) is short-sighted and silly. That music is timeless, and it FITS the format of K-Earth. Keep the old - MORE of the old, and add some new SPARINGLY.

But my worry is that they will keep moving K-Earth "forward in time" until it sounds like JACK. And we already have JACK.

Totally agreed. Moving up the timeline is not kosher to the sound of a classic hits and oldies station. It's fine to add newer 80's music, but play the older stuff and mix it up well.

But only playing the same 80's or the same oldies isn't good either. Better presentation is the key to a better sounding station.

 

[oldies76]

Let's look at the prime years of Top 40, late 50's to mid-60's. Adds might be from 1 to even 5 songs a week, with the average probably being 3. That's about 150 to maybe 200 a year.

Is KRTH adding new late 50's to mid 60's music to their playlist, then keeping them in rotation, then adding more and more? No they are not. Geez, if they were adding 150 to 200 a year and KEEPING them, with the other songs they already have and rotating all of these and not deleting any, like other stations do, then this thread and others in the past would have never taken place.

This is exactly the point. KRTH is not adding anything, maybe a few a year at best, and that's what makes this station or any station with 400 songs boring. Adding "new oldies" is key to freshing up your playlist. Look what that other oldies station 3000 miles to the east does and compare.

Yes, CBS-FM with all the adds and a monstrocity of a playlist, is fresh, is presented well and has yet to bore me, even after 3 years.

 

[calguy]

Okay, I get that you hate a 400 song library and CBS FM is simply the best! Let's concede that for the moment and remove CBS FM from the conversation. Back to KRTH. If you're going to play songs newer than 1980, what direction do you go? At a certain point you have to start playing more music from the 80's. What do you add? AC songs are your most likely alternative. If you really play Top 40/CHR songs from the 80's you add a lot of music that will not blend into the pre 1980 portion of the library. AC songs are safer, and tend to blend in with what you're already playing. Add to that the fact that Jhani Kaye, a Top 40 programmer in the 70's & early 80's and an AC programmer from 1982 to 2005 and he's certainly going to go with what he knows. He sees what the AC audience demos are and they're what he's looking for anyway. Plus he tends to pick up more women 35-54 and younger demos in smaller numbers as well with AC music. You may not like it, but it makes sense. KRTH will never be WCBS, it doesn't need to be, its doing fine just as is and getting pretty good numbers for a station that was on life support just 4 years ago.

 

[davideduardo]

Is KRTH adding new late 50's to mid 60's music to their playlist, then keeping them in rotation, then adding more and more? No they are not.

Certainly they are not, and they would be idiots to do so. They are trying to shed the 55+ audience, and change perceptions of having a stale Beach Boys / Surfin' weekend about 10 times every summer. They are ditching the older stuff that sounds dated, and keeping the smaller number of 60's material that fits a 70's and 80's sound. As I have said, KRTH found it could recover from near death by moving to what is a 100% gold based AC, a perfect solution for LA.

Geez, if they were adding 150 to 200 a year and KEEPING them, with the other songs they already have and rotating all of these and not deleting any, like other stations do, then this thread and others in the past would have never taken place.

I'm positive that Jhani has no concern for being the curator of a dead hits museum. When a song is not useful in achieving the desired demo, it's gone, just as ones that don't test are gone.

This is exactly the point. KRTH is not adding anything, maybe a few a year at best, and that's what makes this station or any station with 400 songs boring.

There you go again. The regular KRTH list is about double that, seen every week on MediaBase. And there is no gain in adding songs if playing them keeps listeners from hearing the biggies they tuned in to hear.

Adding "new oldies" is key to freshing up your playlist. Look what that other oldies station 3000 miles to the east does and compare.

Actually, on a share basis in 25-54, the two are very comparable in ratings over an averaged 6 month span. And in billings, KRTH blows CBS-FM away. On any measure of success, the scale tips to KRTH.

Yes, CBS-FM with all the adds and a monstrocity of a playlist, is fresh, is presented well and has yet to bore me, even after 3 years.

And KRTH does not bore Angelinos. Given the very different demographics of LA (vastly lower percent of Blacks, and more than double the percent of Hispanics) KRTH found the right formula for its market. Comparing the two is absurd... the markets, the demos, the ethnicity, the number of signals, the competitive array are all different.

 

[scooty430]

All of these long threads can be condensed into one basic thought:

Hearing the same songs over and over again is boring.

There is no way to escape this basic fact, and despite whatever "cume" figures and $$ statistics you want to throw out, people are bored. Not just radio geeks, but many people.

 

[oldies76]

Back to KRTH. If you're going to play songs newer than 1980, what direction do you go? At a certain point you have to start playing more music from the 80's. What do you add? AC songs are your most likely alternative. If you really play Top 40/CHR songs from the 80's you add a lot of music that will not blend into the pre 1980 portion of the library. AC songs are safer, and tend to blend in with what you're already playing.

If A/C is the safe bet, then there are quite a few of them to choose from, no doubt. What I've seen is that only a "few select" are chosen during reg. rotation...ie..Dan Hartman, Hall & Oates, Kenny Loggins, Benny Mardones, Phil Collins...etc..

Personally, I would stick to the hits of 1980-1985, with caution thereafter. KRTH does seem to be featuring more of these this weekend, so that's a good thing!

Level 42's "Something About You" would be nice. I just like a good representation of an era mixed in, not just "select" hits played over and over.

 

[oldies76]

And KRTH does not bore Angelinos.

Well.........some accept it the way it is and are pleased, some would like to hear other songs and some just tune out all-together.

It's just the way it is, for any station.

 

[calguy]

And KRTH does not bore Angelinos.

Well.........some accept it the way it is and are pleased, some would like to hear other songs and some just tune out all-together.

It's just the way it is, for any station.

Exactly! No station can please all of their listeners all the time. As a jock I have had to play songs I hated, even when I worked a format that was my favorite as a listener. And I've always thought that no matter where I worked, they could play more songs and have a larger library. Whe I worked an oldies format we had a library that consisted of the top 100 songs from every year going back to the mid 50's, but we didn't always play every one of those songs and I wouldn't have expected to. I hear what you're saying, but I don't believe you'll ever be totally satisfied with what a station is playing. Well unless its WCBS-FM of course! Ha!

 

[scooty430]

There's definitely something wrong with the product delivery system with radio. As someone said, you can go into any supermarket and find thousands of choices. You can go on Netflix and rent any movie ever released, just about.

But on radio, we get to hear only a small fraction of the music that's out there, with many outlets duplicating each other. The only promising recent development was the JACK phenomenon, which broke the old mindset that playlists should be around 200-300. Now we're up around 800, but it's still too small - and many stations are dipping into the same pool of tunes, with slight variations. (How many stations play Black Magic Woman, for example: Jack, KRTH, KLOS, Sound)

And God forbid if you are over 50. With the average lifespan almost 80, that is 30 years of your life where things designed to appeal to you will be actively avoided. Since the airwaves are publicly owned, is the public really being served by this? The ENTIRE public? Or is it big business that is being served?

 

[AM FM listener]

And God forbid if you are over 50. With the average lifespan almost 80, that is 30 years of your life where things designed to appeal to you will be actively avoided. Since the airwaves are publicly owned, is the public really being served by this? The ENTIRE public? Or is it big business that is being served?

I do not fully understand why radio advertisers avoid the 55+ audience. I get the idea that people 55+ are more set in their ways and thus, not as influenced by advertising as much as younger adults. However, whenever I watch the early evening news, I see tons of adds for various drugs and financial services that appear to be targeted to 55+. Newspapers and magazines also attract and advertise to 55+. Other media seem to like 55+, why doesn't radio?

 

[oldies76]

I do not fully understand why radio advertisers avoid the 55+ audience. I get the idea that people 55+ are more set in their ways and thus, not as influenced by advertising as much as younger adults. However, whenever I watch the early evening news, I see tons of adds for various drugs and financial services that appear to be targeted to 55+. Newspapers and magazines also attract and advertise to 55+. Other media seem to like 55+, why doesn't radio?

You right, radio is the only medium that avoids 55+ or maybe 40+ when it comes to music. If they catered to the older folks (on some stations anyways) then you'd have the deeper playlists. The lower end of the 25-54 know little about real oldies, so therefore are not exposed to the real hits that we've heard while growing up. They (the low end of the demo) are mostly only familiar with oldies that have aired repeatedly on stations for years. The people were not even alive when the 50's and 60's, or early 70's were popular, so sure... they probably would tune out the unaired, unfamiliar hits.

The upper half of the 25-54 demo and 55+ are familiar with these other "lost hits" and should be provided a station that caters to them. Why not!

Like you said about TV, newspapers and other media...radio should not be exempt from this practice either. It's all informational and entertainment media.

 

[scooty430]

And God forbid if you are over 50. With the average lifespan almost 80, that is 30 years of your life where things designed to appeal to you will be actively avoided. Since the airwaves are publicly owned, is the public really being served by this? The ENTIRE public? Or is it big business that is being served?

I do not fully understand why radio advertisers avoid the 55+ audience. I get the idea that people 55+ are more set in their ways and thus, not as influenced by advertising as much as younger adults. However, whenever I watch the early evening news, I see tons of adds for various drugs and financial services that appear to be targeted to 55+. Newspapers and magazines also attract and advertise to 55+. Other media seem to like 55+, why doesn't radio?

I think the idea comes from Advertising 101: You get a better return on your investment if you "win over" a customer at age 25. They may buy your product for 50 years. The 60 year old might not. There is, also, as you say, the "set in your ways" argument.

But a few things are different now:

- People are living longer
- Older people are more likely to buy new products than perhaps a generation ago.
- Technology changes so often - the product you are pitching to the 25 year old might not exist when he or she is 55.
- With those technology changes, older people are almost forced to buy new things. Cell phones, HDTVs, laptops... Older people are buying these things too.
- Baby boomers are a large segment of the population, percentage-wise.

As for the TV thing, there is indeed a preference there, too, for younger viewers. Witness the fact that Conan O Brien has LOWER ratings than Leno, but NBC is not too worried. Why? Leno's audience was too old. But somehow on TV there is room for 60 Minutes, CBS Sunday Morning, Matlock, and Murder She Wrote.

 

[calguy]

Back to KRTH. If you're going to play songs newer than 1980, what direction do you go? At a certain point you have to start playing more music from the 80's. What do you add? AC songs are your most likely alternative. If you really play Top 40/CHR songs from the 80's you add a lot of music that will not blend into the pre 1980 portion of the library. AC songs are safer, and tend to blend in with what you're already playing.

If A/C is the safe bet, then there are quite a few of them to choose from, no doubt. What I've seen is that only a "few select" are chosen during reg. rotation...ie..Dan Hartman, Hall & Oates, Kenny Loggins, Benny Mardones, Phil Collins...etc..

Personally, I would stick to the hits of 1980-1985, with caution thereafter. KRTH does seem to be featuring more of these this weekend, so that's a good thing!

Level 42's "Something About You" would be nice. I just like a good representation of an era mixed in, not just "select" hits played over and over.

I'm only guessing here but I think KRTH is being very careful about adding 80's songs. They don't want to tick off their base and I believe they're doing it gradually.

 

[davideduardo]

I think the idea comes from Advertising 101: You get a better return on your investment if you "win over" a customer at age 25. They may buy your product for 50 years. The 60 year old might not. There is, also, as you say, the "set in your ways" argument.

No, again you are not paying attention. The idea comes from the hundreds of millions advertisers spend on market research, where they find who buys products and how much advertising it takes to win them over. The 55+ crowd, on radio, takes more repetitions of an ad than younger audiences, and the return on the investment is low or even non-existent. So advertisers instruct their agencies to target on the groups that use the product the most and who can be persuaded efficiently.