• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Leading Smooth Jazz Internet Streams Rebranding Themselves???

A

AC Tones

It's been a little quiet, guys, so I figure I try to drum up some thought-provoking discussion. Could be nothing, but from time-to-time, I trip over to Shoutcast.com just to see how the umteen scores of Internet radio stations that are listed under "Jazz" or brand themselves as "Smooth Jazz" stations are doing, i.e., who's left, who's new in town, what they are playing, numbers, etc. More idle curiosity for me, since I have been and continue to be statistically irrelevant, and yes, STILL loving it! ;D Anyway, to my surprise, I found neither Sky FM Smooth Jazz or smoothjazz.com listed under "Jazz." In fact, Sky FM was nowhere to be found---probably running dedicated servers now. As for smoothjazz.com, I did find them under "Misc" for miscellaneous, so they are still streaming on Shoutcast's servers.

As a broadcaster and longtime Smooth Jazz fan, I have been monitoring these outlets for the 3+ years I have been on the air to get a sense of the overall 'health" of this format and whether or not they would see a bounce in stats in the form of spurned former terrestrial radio listeners in markets that lost their Smooth Jazz station. As I have stated before, what I have observed in this timeframe is that the audiences of these outlets have not grown as I would have hoped or expected, despite their name recognition and history and the spate of big market terrestrial flips. They are the ONLY two Smooth Jazz Internet outlets that have consistently logged 1000+ concurrent listeners during peak listening hours, and despite what you may think of their programming (good or bad), they are nonetheless bellwethers for this format.

Why is it that smoothjazz.com is no longer listed under "Jazz"? What does this mean for the future of this music on Internet radio, and for this format as a whole? Obviously, I have my own opinions on this (and I don't necessarily disagree with their decision), but I am curious as to what you all think. Rebranding your product and/or changing your listing information does have its consequences. You can and WILL lose listeners---I have learned this first hand. But it has been an important exercise in understanding who is out there and just how much they care about your product, i.e., how much effort they expend to find you again. I now regret changing my iTunes listing and stream server. Sure, while I concede having both increased and riskier vocals in my rotation has caused me to lose some of my longtime listeners who embraced my instrumental-heavy presentation. But based on my analysis (IP address lookup), changing my iTunes directory name and stream server information appears to have had a FAR greater impact on my listenership.

I suspect the folks at smoothjazz.com have thought about this and the potential impact on their listenership. After all, with their name recognition (and Google search placing), one would think the impact would be minimal. Nonetheless, it begs the question why they changed their listing information on Shoutcast in the first place. Is this the precursor to a rebranding of their product or changing their marketing strategy, and if so, what is the underlying motivation behind it? Other posters on this board and myself have struggled and discussed how we can deal with the negative perceptions about the term "Smooth Jazz", but smoothjazz.com, by virtue of their domain name, is essentially "stuck" with it. Sure, they can secure another domain and redirect folks from their website, if that is what they ultimately decide to do. But what will the impact be on their listenership? I have not spent a day in the business. Not to publicly denigrate anyone's product in particular, because I know my product is not above criticism. But as a longtime fan with a decent ear for this music, I have learned that it is not necessarily how good your programming is. More often than not, it is how well you market it. A station in iTunes or any other streaming portal/directory has a reasonably good chance of hooking new and casual listeners with an "A" listing. A listener overwhelmed with 150+ choices, listed alphabetically, under Jazz is not likely to even make it to the "W" section of the directory if they find what they consider to be an adequate station in the "A" section. Bill has often talked about P1 and P2 listeners, and admittedly, I did not know WTH he was talking about when I first came here. :D But now I do, and while I have lost my share of P1s of late, I have lost more P2s due to a marketing decision. While longterm it might be the right move, in the short term, I am curious as to whether outlets who choose to run from the "Smooth Jazz" monicker will experience the same fate if P2s don't care enough about the format to come looking for you. Just a thought.
 
Hey gang. One point I neglected to make that I believe adds credence to my argument is that, now that neither Sky FM or smoothjazz.com are listed at Shoutcast.com, other outlets that are typically in the Top 10-15 stats-wise (concurrent listeners) have seen a SIGNIFICANT bump in their listenership. Case in point, smoothjazztampabay.com, a respectable outlet with as good if not better than others with more listeners, IMO, has seen their numbers more than double. Typically, their primary stream has between 200-300 concurrent listeners, and has been in that neighborhood for years now. But when I checked today, this same primary stream had nearly 700 concurrent listeners. It is obvious that they benefited from being the "next man up", to borrow an often used professional football term.
 
Still show Smoothjazz.com in my directory just above Smoothlounge.com. It's the latest greatest version of Itunes?

Nock
 
Nock said:
Still show Smoothjazz.com in my directory just above Smoothlounge.com. It's the latest greatest version of Itunes?

Nock
Click to expand...

Hey brother. I was talking about the website/portal Shoutcast.com, which lists stations that use Shoutcast servers, of which smoothjazz.com is one of them. The stations are listed by popularity, i.e., number of concurrent listeners. When I checked earlier today under "Jazz", I did not find Sky FM or smoothjazz.com listed there. They are daily #1 and #2 on the list as far as popularity, and the only ones to have 4-digit concurrent listeners (Sky FM varies between 3500-4500 during peak hours, and sj.com from 1200-1800). When I checked today, none of the stations listed under "Jazz" exceeded 850 concurrent listeners, and those stations who have been distant trailers of the big boys picked up quite a bit of listeners, in some cases, a 50-100% bump, which I think is quite telling. While this research is by no means scientific :D, it tells me that a significant number of those listeners who used Shoutcast.com as a portal simply tuned in to the NEW stations at the top of list instead of going the extra mile to find Sky FM or smoothjazz.com.

This concerns me, and on the surface, confirms something I and others have suspected (known) for quite some time. This format's success in the early days was predicated on the passion and loyalty of its diehard listeners. But the "dummying down" of the product attracted an entirely different demo of listeners who really don't give a rat's "you know what" where they get Smooth Jazz music from. It is purely background music from them, and everyone sounds the same. In other words, radio recruited a legion of casual listeners who have little or no loyalty to the stations they listen to. With the exception of the diehards that remain, one Smooth Jazz stream is the same as any other, and if a station appears at the top of a list, it MUST be the best. It's the "next man up." The casual listener says, "If the #1-ranked stream moves from the directory or goes belly up, I'll just go to the #2-ranked stream. It's probably ALMOST as good."

It tells me that the majority of P1s that the format once had in its hip pocket are indeed gone, LONG gone. We have known this, but it looks like the trend continues unabated. Regardless of who or what you want to blame, the audience for this music is shrinking, and the numbers don't lie. What is left is a cadre of casual listeners who, IMO, don't care enough about this music to actively seek it out, to breathe it, to live it, and immerse themselves in it. This will make it harder and harder to monetize and make your operation profitable. Sure, these listeners may pad your stats if you are fortunate or work hard enough to get to the top of the lists on streaming portals. But the majority of them don't want to expend the effort to find you if you suddenly and inexplicably disappear from the list.
 
In some aspects Chris, you are right on the money when you say the audience is gone but that was then and this is now. Everybody comes to this music/format for the tempo and texture no matter what that is. Up, down or whatever, we supply a listening experience that can't be found elsewhere and that remains the constant even today. When it started the format grew on Primary listeners (P1's) who supported the music and station in multiple ways. We were not just a place to listen to good music but a lifestyle to them. Then the consultants came along with a plan to add more secondary listeners (P2's) to the mix. Before when we had secondary listeners it was icing on the cake and those were people who could be converted to P1 status. Then somewhere along the line the consultants thought they had a better chance a controlling the P2's because they did not have the same passion that the P1's, so the thought process for Mr. Smooth and the gang was screw the P1's because they were to vocal, passionate and hard to control. The did what they did with the thought in mind that the P1's had no where else to go so they would have to continue to listen and boy were they wrong. The P1's left in droves and they were stuck with the P2's who just did not have the same emotional investment. Then you combine that with a total lean toward the urban audience to play in the Arbitron game differently and once that changed with PPM, the whole perfect storm came together to end the run on terrestrial radio. Long live the king because the king is dead.

Now let's move to today and look at the future. It's a glass half full thing to me rather than the glass being half empty. Not only did we blow off the P1's but we also did nothing to make the format younger to keep adding new audience. All fomats do that! Any business in their right mind knows that you lose around 20% of what you have each year and you need to replace that. So, where's the opportunity? It's everywhere in my opinion. I have listeners in China, France and you name the country but that and a $1.07 right now at Mickey D's gets me a large Coke. The only thing I worrry about and the only way I can make money on this sucker is be a central Ohio internet radio station. Getting listed helps but what helps even more is to meet those in my community and spread the world by shaking hands and telling them what I have to offer and how I can help them ease their pain of doing business. So, I'm trying to be proactive by programming something I think will attract a younger audience while at the same time gathering all of the old folks I can. I'm working on a pricing structure that will be different and give value to those who want to advertise on this station. It's much more important to me to get local press and word of mouth than it is to be listed everywhere under the sun. I'm having a couple of videos made to post on the site and help me sell which I think is a very smart move and I fell into both of them. Now don't get me wrong because that helps but not like what I can do in my own neighborhood. For example I've join my chamber of commerce which is working better than a lot of other things I've tried. I just know that it's a new world and the rules are now what we make. I know that we can't do it the way we have for the past 15 years and we have to think either outside the box or just think to grow the box we move in but the status quo is gone. I know we blew off most of the P1's and that we are trying to move people to a new platform but it can be done and if you think the future is so bright that you have to wear shades then don those Ray-Ban's and join movement. If you don't then it's time to start doing something else.
 
I'm ALL in, man. See the shades?? 8)

Complelely agree with aggressively going local, Bill. It's the future of Internet radio, and local communities are tremendously underserved these days. And as time goes on, I suspect there will be fewer and fewer outlets for this music, so there will be a void to fill. But I just don't have the time, and don't have the money to do what I REALLY want to do with the station. It's just not in the cards. Barely staying afloat as it is.

I guess what bothers me at times is our (broadcasters) push to run away from the word "Jazz" in marketing our stations (and I have been guilty of this myself, to some extent). Why? I think sometimes we are so consumed by the negative connotations associated with the term "Smooth Jazz" that we try to distance ourselves from "Jazz" in our branding, and that might be counter-productive. I know they are fewer in number today than they were in 1995, but they are out there looking for this music. I think what also has contributed to this movement away from "Jazz" in our branding is the cumulative barbs that have been thrown by Straight Ahead Jazz purists from the beginning of time, it seems, that this music is not "Jazz" at all. Quite frankly, I am sick of it. I am sick of apologizing to these elitists for the artists and music I love. They aren't going to listen to us anyway, so why do we care about what they think? It's a sort of bizarre political correctness that for years has caused us to justify to purists and pundits why we like this music and why we play it. I have heard plenty say, even on this board, "This is not Jazz at all...Miles Davis is rolling in his grave...blah, blah, blah." It is what it is, and I love it, and have for 25 years. It's Jazz in my mind---a different flavor---but Jazz nonetheless, and no one can convince me otherwise. The sad thing is, years of barbs from pundits (both orally and in writing) HAVE taken their toll on this format. It's not just about the programming. It's not just about the direction of consultants. It's not just about an aging demo. The negative perceptions about this format perpetuated by those who believe there is only one "true" form of Jazz have made it FAR more difficult for us to recruit a new generation of passionate, younger listeners you speak of.
 
Guys, I have some thoughts on the branding effects of the words "Smooth" and "Jazz". First, most people actively dislike true Jazz. The word "Jazz" means to me a bunch of skinny guys playing discordant music with a singer doing scat. The word "Smooth" means to me a background sound, boring and dry.

When we ran what was then also called a "New Adult Contemporary" station here in Albuquerque, programmed by Steve Hibbard, no less - we NEVER used the phrase "Smooth Jazz"; we simply called the station "The Horizon". We also had a no-covers policy that was perhaps a bit too stringent. The musical styles ranged from the sax sound that we in radio think of when you hear of "Smooth Jazz", but also included the styles named New Age, Urban, accoustic guitar, flamenco, and World Music. Indeed, it was a very special station which I still have a strong emotional feeling about. The increase in station values that occured as part of the 1996 Communications Act led us to sell the radio station, but all this time since I have wanted to re-create a modern version of the original "Horizon".

When the Simmons group bought the station from us, they immediately narrowed the playlist from about 1200 songs to about 300, started calling the station "Smooth Jazz", and soon thereafter moved the format from our 6 kw stick to a 100 kw signal that also covered Santa Fe. The result: The station changed format within two years. Later, a new GM came to the Simmons group who had a strong NAC background, Bruce Pollack. To the Simmons' owners credit, they allowed Bruce to be independent from their corporate consultant and create a really good, albeit "Smooth Jazz, The Horizon" branded station. When Simmons sold their group to Univision, despite a strong billing history Univision immediately changed the format of the station. That caused a scramble on the part of American General Media to start a "SJ" station with some of the best talent in the market. Unfortunately AGM told everyone what their plans were, and lo, Clear Channel beat them to the punch by changing the format of one of their stations to "SJ", short-circuiting the plans of AGM. Well, guess what - CC went with BA for their programming, and even I as a strong P1 I could not listen to that excruciatingly boring and dry format (few people did), and the station failed. CC changed the format to one of their format-in-a-box Classic Country formats a couple of years ago and since the market has been without a NAC format station.

How unfortunate that BA was allowed to almost singlehandedly kill off this once compelling and powerhouse format. I am glad there are people like both of you that are keeping the format alive, but from my perspective AC, you are trying much too hard to be avant-garde and experimental, which in my (humble) opinion could be a significant reason for the decline in your listenership. There is so much stunning, compelling material in the Format being produced today it is absolutely amazing to me. And, there is some 25 years of superb music which could be played as the foundation of a modern version of the format that is largely being ignored.

Thanks for the opportunity to chime in!
 
First of all ABQ, thanks for the candid and quality feedback, and that wonderful piece of history. I have gotten the message LOUD and CLEAR, from you and many other of my longtime listeners. You all will be pleased to hear that I am scrapping the avant-garde/experimental approach, and going back to what everyone came to the station to begin with---the true NAC sound, old and new. My thinking is, if I can't afford to grow or aggressively market the station, why should I concern myself with splitting the atom? I can't save the format myself. Why not just be true to the guys who have stuck it out with me from the beginning? This weekend I will again overhaul the program. The experimental music will be the basis for a "sister" stream I am going to get going in a month or two called "The Island." I will be able to vent my musical spleen there. :D Instead of using vocals as a change of pace to an instrumental-heavy format, it will be the other way around. Stay tuned!

Now, let me say that Steve Hibbard IS my inspiration as a programmer. In my 25 years following this format, IMO, Steve was without peers. I have not hidden my admiration for Jones Radio Networks, in fact, it's what brought me to this board to begin with. I can only imagine how great that old station sounded. I hope Steve is doing well. I have lost touch with him over the last couple of years.

COMPLETELY agree that the music being cranked out today is better than I have heard in years. These guys are really showcasing their talents, and it's a pleasure to be a programmer these days.
 
A couple of quick thoughts. Chris (those are groovy shades), it's alright to experiment with what we are doing but remember to fail fast because the faster we fail the faster we succeed. We have to think differently now because we can't go back to what it was. I try new things on a weekly basis and some work and some don't but I'll never know unless I try. It's time to reinvent ourselves to a different platform and that means not doing what got us here in some shape or form.

As for the words "Smooth" and "Jazz" that's left up to the comfort zone of each. My two cents says that they are both burnt beyond repair and that's why I don't use either one on air. I do think they both can be used in external marketing and labeling in some cases such as some of the listings we've talked about above. I use the "J" word in my print ad but for the most part I want a listener to make up his own mind about what I'm playing which opens up my play list to so much more when they label it for themselves and I don't apply lables they don't agree with.

I went to a networking event this morning and got a "Jazz Nazi" (as we call them here) on my case and I told him very nicely but firmly that straight ahead jazz is great but (1) I can't make a living playing it because the audience is so small and that's why you can mainly find it on NPR stations who don't have to take the risk we do. And (2) after he said he didn't like what I played, I thanked him for his time, told him it was a pleasure to meet him, ask him to please let me know what I can do for him in the future and told him that the station is there if he wants to listen but we'll miss his ears and he'll miss out on some great music. We are now super serving the niche. It's all about our P1's and nothing else. It reminds me of an old Firesign Theatre CD that was called "How can you be in two places at once when you're really nowhere at all". I have my core and I listen to them (to an extent) and everybody else can go find their thing. I just play Harmonic Lounge music and there's an audience for that and I can make a living from them.
 
AC Tones said:
First of all ABQ, thanks for the candid and quality feedback, and that wonderful piece of history. I have gotten the message LOUD and CLEAR, from you and many other of my longtime listeners. You all will be pleased to hear that I am scrapping the avant-garde/experimental approach, and going back to what everyone came to the station to begin with---the true NAC sound, old and new. My thinking is, if I can't afford to grow or aggressively market the station, why should I concern myself with splitting the atom? I can't save the format myself. Why not just be true to the guys who have stuck it out with me from the beginning? This weekend I will again overhaul the program. The experimental music will be the basis for a "sister" stream I am going to get going in a month or two called "The Island." I will be able to vent my musical spleen there. :D Instead of using vocals as a change of pace to an instrumental-heavy format, it will be the other way around. Stay tuned!

Now, let me say that Steve Hibbard IS my inspiration as a programmer. In my 25 years following this format, IMO, Steve was without peers. I have not hidden my admiration for Jones Radio Networks, in fact, it's what brought me to this board to begin with. I can only imagine how great that old station sounded. I hope Steve is doing well. I have lost touch with him over the last couple of years.

COMPLETELY agree that the music being cranked out today is better than I have heard in years. These guys are really showcasing their talents, and it's a pleasure to be a programmer these days.
Click to expand...

Thanks AC...I have to admit, I heard I think a Taylor Swift type song and I clicked to WINR immediately. I have always had the belief that this format of music did not need playlists, reporting charts or consultants. In my ideal world the PD and MD would get new compact discs in, open them up, listen to the entire cd, and decide what songs would fit into "their" sound. Super serve your P1's. Thanks for going back to the original The .wav. I do love the wavejazz liners though.
 
ABQ gives us a view of when "Smooth Jazz" was an exciting format. The NAC stations took names like "The WAVE" (the station that started it all). Loved that format. Windham Hill, Narada and a host of small labels supplied music that I still enjoy. Contemporary Jazz instrumentals, blended with New Age instrumentals and Adult Alternative vocals. It worked big time.

And then some corporate suit decided that more money could be made by turning it into an R&B format. Drop the Adult Alternative vocals and throw in the 4 Tops, Marvin Gaye, Boys to Men, etc. Add Booker T's "Green Onions" to the instrumentals. And keep the same songs in the active rotation for years - don't you dare add new ones. It took several years, but they succeeded in killing the format and the artists who made the music.

I view it as a "90's Thing". CHR and AC radio was playing some Kenny G, Larry Carlton, Spyro Gyra, Jim Brickman, etc. So someone came up with the idea of building a format around Contemporary Jazz and it worked. But CJ is no longer fodder for CHR or AC radio stations, so its day is over. But I sure do miss it!
 
jhguthlac said:
...And then some corporate suit decided that more money could be made by turning it into an R&B format. Drop the Adult Alternative vocals and throw in the 4 Tops, Marvin Gaye, Boys to Men, etc...
Click to expand...

To some extent, this is the Broadcast Architecture tipping point. Everything about BA's approach was cloned based on success at a station in Chicago. Somebody figured out that adults-who-favor-urban-formats (don't you love politically-correct euphemisms) were not only heavy users of radio, but that Arbitron had a mandate to find larger samples in this group, and paid them more to keep diaries!

But in places like Portland, OR, where the adults-who-favor-urban-formats demo represented a single-digit percentage of the population, this approach was DOA. Soon, stations faced diminishing choices. The labels signed and promoted R&B artists as "Smooth Jazz" artists, and even instrumental artists like Dave Koz embraced the funk.

"Smooth Jazz" with abrasive vocals is, sadly, neither smooth nor jazz. I'm not sure how it survived this long.

There might be a bigger opportunity in some markets for dumping even more instrumentals and calling it what is really is - Soft R&B.
 
jhguthlac said:
ABQ gives us a view of when "Smooth Jazz" was an exciting format. The NAC stations took names like "The WAVE" (the station that started it all). Loved that format. Windham Hill, Narada and a host of small labels supplied music that I still enjoy. Contemporary Jazz instrumentals, blended with New Age instrumentals and Adult Alternative vocals. It worked big time.

And then some corporate suit decided that more money could be made by turning it into an R&B format. Drop the Adult Alternative vocals and throw in the 4 Tops, Marvin Gaye, Boys to Men, etc. Add Booker T's "Green Onions" to the instrumentals. And keep the same songs in the active rotation for years - don't you dare add new ones. It took several years, but they succeeded in killing the format and the artists who made the music.

I view it as a "90's Thing". CHR and AC radio was playing some Kenny G, Larry Carlton, Spyro Gyra, Jim Brickman, etc. So someone came up with the idea of building a format around Contemporary Jazz and it worked. But CJ is no longer fodder for CHR or AC radio stations, so its day is over. But I sure do miss it!
Click to expand...



You are right, it went downhill. I remember in the late '80s the format called "The Breeze", they had it right.

Now for example in Boston we have WMJX HD2 which is the lamest station you'll ever hear. "Me and Mrs. Jones" etc.

Try this... http://www.cjazzchannel.com/
 
jhguthlac said:
ABQ gives us a view of when "Smooth Jazz" was an exciting format. The NAC stations took names like "The WAVE" (the station that started it all). Loved that format. Windham Hill, Narada and a host of small labels supplied music that I still enjoy. Contemporary Jazz instrumentals, blended with New Age instrumentals and Adult Alternative vocals. It worked big time.

And then some corporate suit decided that more money could be made by turning it into an R&B format. Drop the Adult Alternative vocals and throw in the 4 Tops, Marvin Gaye, Boys to Men, etc. Add Booker T's "Green Onions" to the instrumentals. And keep the same songs in the active rotation for years - don't you dare add new ones. It took several years, but they succeeded in killing the format and the artists who made the music.

I view it as a "90's Thing". CHR and AC radio was playing some Kenny G, Larry Carlton, Spyro Gyra, Jim Brickman, etc. So someone came up with the idea of building a format around Contemporary Jazz and it worked. But CJ is no longer fodder for CHR or AC radio stations, so its day is over. But I sure do miss it!
Click to expand...


I somehow missed reading this post while I was on vacation this past summer.

I'm nominating it as RI Smooth Jazz post of the year.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom