Los Angeles + Riverside-San Bernardino Radio Ratings: October 2014

[oldies76]

-Deleted post-

 

[davideduardo]

-Deleted post-

Please do more posting like this.

 

[michael hagerty]

So in the 1970s the Billboard Hot 100 reflected wholesale numbers, not retail sales? But...but...Disco Duck and The Night Chicago Died each went to number one and each went gold. They had to have been bought by at least a million "paying customers"---they just had to be. Come to think of it, Rick Dees used to joke that only seven people bought his Disco Duck album. Maybe he's right!

The single "Disco Duck" was #1 on the Hot 100 for one week. The album, "The Original Disco Duck", peaked at #157 on the Billboard Top 200 LPs list.

Seven people is comic exaggeration, but maybe not by much. I posted a lengthy explanation of this on the Classic Hits board nearly two years ago. I'll try to distill it now, but there's quite a bit to it, and if you want to know, you have to read. Given the passion level on this board, that shouldn't be asking too much.

Billboard was not originally intended to be a mass-market magazine. It was a trade paper, aimed first at vaudeville and other live theater, and eventually branching out into coin-operated amusement devices, radio, television and records.

The idea behind the record charts was two-fold: To give retailers an idea of what was hot so they could order accordingly (only a handful of very large stores could simply stock everything)...and to give record labels the incentive to advertise in the pages of Billboard to those retailers who would drive up those chart numbers by ordering and re-ordering more copies of those very records.

But how to determine those charts? Calling every store that sold records in America would be prohibitive both in terms of time and money (we paid for long-distance back in those days). Calling a "representative sample of stores" would still be time-consuming and expensive, just less so. But having a direct connection with the labels (to whom you were trying to sell advertising every single week) would tell you raw numbers...how many copies were getting shipped out every week. So throughout the 1960s and until the fall of 1981, the Hot 100 Singles chart was based on wholesale sales, as was the Billboard Top 200 LPs.

The trouble is, it couldn't tell you how many of those copies wound up in the hands of paying customers and how many went unsold. Labels generally had return policies...90 days after delivery, a store could send back unsold 45s for credit. Six months for albums. But there was no chart in Billboard for what was sent back. They did report returns, in general numbers as an industry total, in small news stories buried in the middle of the magazine, but those didn't discuss specific titles. There certainly was no re-calculation of the chart (and no point to that, since the chart was all about guiding the retailer at the moment and selling advertising), and nobody was taking back Gold and Platinum records.

The ultimate example of that was the soundtrack of the 1978 movie "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band". RSO shipped out one million copies of that in the first week. It debuted at number one and earned a Platinum record in its first week. But at retail, it stiffed. The returns were legendary. The industry joke was that it was the first album to ship platinum and return double platinum. RSO was never going to divulge the real numbers (no label ever did), but the prevailing wisdom was that fewer than 100,000 copies were sold at retail.

That's the most notorious case, but a smaller version of that was playing out on the charts every week for 20+ years before. Once labels figured out the system, all they had to do was over-press and over-ship at wholesale. That produced a higher chart number, giving retailers confidence to order and get the inventory out of distributors' warehouses and into retailers' stock. If that (and promotion) resulted in radio play and people liked the record, then it might even sell in the stores. Maybe. If not, the label and the wholesalers have the retailers' money, and returns are paid off with credit toward future orders, not cash, so the label still comes out ahead.

So what did those chart numbers mean?

A record's first week on the Hot 100 wasn't an indicator of how many people bought the record, but a snapshot of how many wholesale copies had been shipped to distributors. So debut numbers were virtually useless. The next couple of weeks worth of chart action were stores ordering first-time stock.

If a record peaked at #50 or below, that wasn't a "Hot 100 hit", it was a record that most record stores didn't think was worth stocking (or re-stocking beyond their initial 5 or 10 copy order). #40 wasn't much better, nor #30. Those basically indicate that more (but by no means all) stores placed an order, but doesn't suggest that demand was high enough for them to ever have to re-stock.

Above that, it's important to look at where a record peaks with this in mind: Let's say a record moved 25-20 last week (again, we're traveling back in time to the 60s-80s...pre-Soundscan). That suggests that stores were optimistic about the record and bought copies. But what if it slides to 24 this week? That means the optimism on the part of the record stores came after the record had already peaked with the record buyers. They were ordering stock when it was at 25 expecting it to go Top 15 or higher. But it went the other way. That "Top 20 hit" was actually a #25 wholesale record that became overstocked compared to buyer demand that week.

Was the Hot 100 in any way reflecting the true popularity of records?

Well, any record that made the Top 10 by climbing over a period of several weeks probably was legit. Those chart jumps and bullets ("Stars", as Billboard called them) were indicative of more orders for a record being made this week than the week before. Sometimes that could be accomplished simply by more stores placing first-time orders...but the longer the timespan, the more likely it was that the stores were replacing stock that they had sold to paying customers.

Even records that debuted big fast (a new Beatles, for example) were probably legit if they stayed high on the charts for a certain period of time. But a rapid fall-off from a high chart number suggests that big peak was record stores anticipating demand that wasn't really there.

Which is why you've seen me say that anything peaking under #15 really isn't a hit....and a lot of things that peaked between #11 and #15 weren't, either (Royal Scots Dragoon Guards "Amazing Grace", anyone?). Because of what the Hot 100 measured (store owner optimism), a record that cracks #20 is a record the store owners believed could go Top 10. Those that didn't under-performed expectations. They weren't "gotta haves".

There's one exception to that rule: There are some records that were strong performers in certain markets, but it just didn't translate nationally. Tower of Power's "You're Still A Young Man" was a huge record in Los Angeles and San Francisco....Top 5, in fact. But it peaked at #29 in Billboard. Not enough stores stocking or selling it elsewhere (TOP was a California band).

Again, none of this was ever supposed to matter to the public. But when American Top 40 needed a chart for its weekly countdown, it settled on Billboard (largely for convenience sake...Billboard and Watermark were a mile away from each other in L.A. and they could get the numbers as soon as they were tabulated).

Billboard was unknown to the general public until its weekly exposure in AT40, and it was slow to capitalize on that. Eventually (after 1980, IIRC), Joel Whitburn began publishing mass-market chart books you could buy at mainstream book stores ( his Record Research books had always been mail order), Fred Bronson followed suit, and the Billboard branded greatest hits CDs were released.

It was based largely on the public's misunderstanding of what those numbers really represented. Billboard never said they were accurately charting actual retail sales, but they never corrected the impression, either...and furthered it by marketing products based on their charts to the public at large.

If Billboard (and Casey Kasem) had gone out of their way to say "The Hot 100 chart represents wholesale shipments of 45 RPM records to distributors and record stores and is not indicative of actual retail sales. Such sales may not occur, in which case the records are returned to the label. No re-accounting of the chart to reflect the actual sales of the record, which may be substantially less than the number shipped wholesale, will be done and no adjustment made to chart rankings as a result", on every AT40 broadcast, Whitburn or Bronson book or CD compilation, I doubt the Billboard chart would be anything the public would have paid much attention to.

 

[TheBigA]

What's made Billboard more complicated now is the splitting of their charts with the "Hot" chart and the "Airplay" chart. The Hot chart includes streaming and downloads, while Airplay was strictly from radio. I spoke with a Billboard editor this week, and he talked about some confusion on the part of the music industry over which chart to quote. He says it depends on the artist. Those getting a lot of airplay go with the airplay chart, and those who get a lot of downloads and streaming prefer to quote the Hot chart. Billboard sees the Hot chart as the official chart. But what will this mean years from now, when using Billboard charts to assess the popularity of songs?

 

[michael hagerty]

What's made Billboard more complicated now is the splitting of their charts with the "Hot" chart and the "Airplay" chart. The Hot chart includes streaming and downloads, while Airplay was strictly from radio. I spoke with a Billboard editor this week, and he talked about some confusion on the part of the music industry over which chart to quote. He says it depends on the artist. Those getting a lot of airplay go with the airplay chart, and those who get a lot of downloads and streaming prefer to quote the Hot chart. Billboard sees the Hot chart as the official chart. But what will this mean years from now, when using Billboard charts to assess the popularity of songs?

Billboard had several false starts at incorporating airplay into the Hot 100 in the 70s, before finally making it official in the fall of 1981. Those of us who opposed it at the time took the position that including airplay would simply inflate the chart numbers of turntable hits...songs that were getting play but underperforming at retail. It would be like automakers counting every time someone saw one of their cars on the street as a sale.

Today, it's different, in that radio is much better able to determine the popularity of records with its audience. So an airplay chart is more relevant.

 

[oldies76]

Please do more posting like this.

Professionalism at it's best. And it shows.......again.

You, Mr. Hagerty, Big A and KM Richards.......reasons why radio is suppressed these days to the point of no return. Thank you and effectively ruining the radio listening experience for the hundreds of thousands of classic hit music fans.

Radio was great years back, but your robotic standards have all but destroyed the experience for many. You side by the ignorance of many who accept your 400 songs as the backbone of radio today, no more, no less. Radio fans and true music aficionados know better and are far more intelligent than the crowd you consistently target who have accepted your junk 400 song playlist, effectively brainwashing them into thinking that those are the only songs that were ever hits. So you play them over and over and over. You have no choice but to play them. True radio and music fans will never listen to your garbage.

I will maintain my effort to change radio to the way it should be...just not here any longer. There are far more people who want radio changed, than just your four and your buddies trying to stop us. Not gonna happen. We will go somewhere else. You won't. So long.....for good. And if I ever return, it will be under a different screen name.

Enjoy your Holidays.

 

[michael hagerty]

You, Mr. Hagerty, Big A and KM Richards.......reasons why radio is suppressed these days to the point of no return. Thank you and effectively ruining the radio listening experience for the hundreds of thousands of classic hit music fans.

Wow. And I haven't programmed a music radio station since 1981. That's influence I had no idea I possessed!

So long.....for good. And if I ever return, it will be under a different screen name.

So, not really so long for good, then. And I'm guessing we'll recognize you no matter what the screen name.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I'm going to say this one "last" time, as a parting comment.

Radio fans and true music aficionados know better and are far more intelligent than the crowd you consistently target who have accepted your junk 400 song playlist, effectively brainwashing them into thinking that those are the only songs that were ever hits.

We don't program for "radio fans and true music aficionados" ... we program for the mass audience. And we don't brainwash them, they tell us through research which songs were the most universally accepted hits that have maintained their popularity with the masses over the years.

I will maintain my effort to change radio to the way it should be...just not here any longer. There are far more people who want radio changed, than just your four and your buddies trying to stop us. Not gonna happen.

You can "maintain your effort" all you want, but you will not effect a major change in the way radio is programmed, because the existing system works. And if the "far more people" are in the upper demographics (which appears to be the case) you will be ignored completely.

Your vision of radio is what's "not gonna happen" ... and as Michael says, I'm sure we'll recognize you when you inevitably return under a different name. We've read enough of your posts to know your writing style, and no one never successfully conceals that.

Personally, given your history of saying you're leaving and then returning almost immediately, I don't believe for one second that you're gone.

 

[TheBigA]

You, Mr. Hagerty, Big A and KM Richards.......reasons why radio is suppressed these days to the point of no return.

Once again, don't extrapolate your personal opinion to everyone who listens to classic hits. In all of the major markets, classic hits stations like WCBS, KRTH, WOGL, KOOL, and many more are experiencing the highest ratings in their history. Even where you live, the small station you enjoy is being killed in the ratings by a bigger station with a more professionally curated playlist. You can blame me for your personal situation. But I know many more people who are enjoying radio now because of the care we take in picking the music. They wouldn't be listening in the numbers they are if they agreed with you.

 

[davideduardo]

Professionalism at it's best. And it shows.......again.

I liked your previous post better. It was more to the point.

And if I ever return, it will be under a different screen name.

Which makes me think of the Spanish expression, "A monkey, even when dressed in silk, is still a monkey".

 

[gr8oldies]

How can we miss you if you won't go away?

 

[Thomps2525]

A great title for a country song!

Michael, thank you for very much for the detailed story of the Billboard charts and the influence of wholesale record shipments. Several years ago I wrote an article about the history of the publication for LARadio.com. It began in 1894 as Billboard Advertising, a monthly trade paper for handbill posters. In 1900, the magazine was also covering circuses, amusement parks and other outdoor entertainment and switched to weekly publication. It was then known as The Billboard. Eventually Billboard began covering vaudeville, then the new "motion pictures" and "phonograph records." The Circus Historical Society's website contains several articles from 1901-03 issues of The Billboard. All the articles are, as you might expect, about circuses but they make for some fun reading. I wonder what ever happened to Darling's Dog & Pony Show.

http://www.circushistory.org/History/Billboard1901.htm

 

[semoochie]

The single "Disco Duck" was #1 on the Hot 100 for one week. The album, "The Original Disco Duck", peaked at #157 on the Billboard Top 200 LPs list.

Seven people is comic exaggeration, but maybe not by much. I posted a lengthy explanation of this on the Classic Hits board nearly two years ago. I'll try to distill it now, but there's quite a bit to it, and if you want to know, you have to read. Given the passion level on this board, that shouldn't be asking too much.

Billboard was not originally intended to be a mass-market magazine. It was a trade paper, aimed first at vaudeville and other live theater, and eventually branching out into coin-operated amusement devices, radio, television and records.

The idea behind the record charts was two-fold: To give retailers an idea of what was hot so they could order accordingly (only a handful of very large stores could simply stock everything)...and to give record labels the incentive to advertise in the pages of Billboard to those retailers who would drive up those chart numbers by ordering and re-ordering more copies of those very records.

But how to determine those charts? Calling every store that sold records in America would be prohibitive both in terms of time and money (we paid for long-distance back in those days). Calling a "representative sample of stores" would still be time-consuming and expensive, just less so. But having a direct connection with the labels (to whom you were trying to sell advertising every single week) would tell you raw numbers...how many copies were getting shipped out every week. So throughout the 1960s and until the fall of 1981, the Hot 100 Singles chart was based on wholesale sales, as was the Billboard Top 200 LPs.

The trouble is, it couldn't tell you how many of those copies wound up in the hands of paying customers and how many went unsold. Labels generally had return policies...90 days after delivery, a store could send back unsold 45s for credit. Six months for albums. But there was no chart in Billboard for what was sent back. They did report returns, in general numbers as an industry total, in small news stories buried in the middle of the magazine, but those didn't discuss specific titles. There certainly was no re-calculation of the chart (and no point to that, since the chart was all about guiding the retailer at the moment and selling advertising), and nobody was taking back Gold and Platinum records.

The ultimate example of that was the soundtrack of the 1978 movie "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band". RSO shipped out one million copies of that in the first week. It debuted at number one and earned a Platinum record in its first week. But at retail, it stiffed. The returns were legendary. The industry joke was that it was the first album to ship platinum and return double platinum. RSO was never going to divulge the real numbers (no label ever did), but the prevailing wisdom was that fewer than 100,000 copies were sold at retail.

That's the most notorious case, but a smaller version of that was playing out on the charts every week for 20+ years before. Once labels figured out the system, all they had to do was over-press and over-ship at wholesale. That produced a higher chart number, giving retailers confidence to order and get the inventory out of distributors' warehouses and into retailers' stock. If that (and promotion) resulted in radio play and people liked the record, then it might even sell in the stores. Maybe. If not, the label and the wholesalers have the retailers' money, and returns are paid off with credit toward future orders, not cash, so the label still comes out ahead.

So what did those chart numbers mean?

A record's first week on the Hot 100 wasn't an indicator of how many people bought the record, but a snapshot of how many wholesale copies had been shipped to distributors. So debut numbers were virtually useless. The next couple of weeks worth of chart action were stores ordering first-time stock.

If a record peaked at #50 or below, that wasn't a "Hot 100 hit", it was a record that most record stores didn't think was worth stocking (or re-stocking beyond their initial 5 or 10 copy order). #40 wasn't much better, nor #30. Those basically indicate that more (but by no means all) stores placed an order, but doesn't suggest that demand was high enough for them to ever have to re-stock.

Above that, it's important to look at where a record peaks with this in mind: Let's say a record moved 25-20 last week (again, we're traveling back in time to the 60s-80s...pre-Soundscan). That suggests that stores were optimistic about the record and bought copies. But what if it slides to 24 this week? That means the optimism on the part of the record stores came after the record had already peaked with the record buyers. They were ordering stock when it was at 25 expecting it to go Top 15 or higher. But it went the other way. That "Top 20 hit" was actually a #25 wholesale record that became overstocked compared to buyer demand that week.

Was the Hot 100 in any way reflecting the true popularity of records?

Well, any record that made the Top 10 by climbing over a period of several weeks probably was legit. Those chart jumps and bullets ("Stars", as Billboard called them) were indicative of more orders for a record being made this week than the week before. Sometimes that could be accomplished simply by more stores placing first-time orders...but the longer the timespan, the more likely it was that the stores were replacing stock that they had sold to paying customers.

Even records that debuted big fast (a new Beatles, for example) were probably legit if they stayed high on the charts for a certain period of time. But a rapid fall-off from a high chart number suggests that big peak was record stores anticipating demand that wasn't really there.

Which is why you've seen me say that anything peaking under #15 really isn't a hit....and a lot of things that peaked between #11 and #15 weren't, either (Royal Scots Dragoon Guards "Amazing Grace", anyone?). Because of what the Hot 100 measured (store owner optimism), a record that cracks #20 is a record the store owners believed could go Top 10. Those that didn't under-performed expectations. They weren't "gotta haves".

There's one exception to that rule: There are some records that were strong performers in certain markets, but it just didn't translate nationally. Tower of Power's "You're Still A Young Man" was a huge record in Los Angeles and San Francisco....Top 5, in fact. But it peaked at #29 in Billboard. Not enough stores stocking or selling it elsewhere (TOP was a California band).

Again, none of this was ever supposed to matter to the public. But when American Top 40 needed a chart for its weekly countdown, it settled on Billboard (largely for convenience sake...Billboard and Watermark were a mile away from each other in L.A. and they could get the numbers as soon as they were tabulated).

Billboard was unknown to the general public until its weekly exposure in AT40, and it was slow to capitalize on that. Eventually (after 1980, IIRC), Joel Whitburn began publishing mass-market chart books you could buy at mainstream book stores ( his Record Research books had always been mail order), Fred Bronson followed suit, and the Billboard branded greatest hits CDs were released.

It was based largely on the public's misunderstanding of what those numbers really represented. Billboard never said they were accurately charting actual retail sales, but they never corrected the impression, either...and furthered it by marketing products based on their charts to the public at large.

If Billboard (and Casey Kasem) had gone out of their way to say "The Hot 100 chart represents wholesale shipments of 45 RPM records to distributors and record stores and is not indicative of actual retail sales. Such sales may not occur, in which case the records are returned to the label. No re-accounting of the chart to reflect the actual sales of the record, which may be substantially less than the number shipped wholesale, will be done and no adjustment made to chart rankings as a result", on every AT40 broadcast, Whitburn or Bronson book or CD compilation, I doubt the Billboard chart would be anything the public would have paid much attention to.

Does this explain away Paula Abdul's entire career? She had hit after hit before they changed their tabulation method in the early 90s and had another song flying up the charts. That song dropped like a rock and she never had another hit!

 

[michael hagerty]

Does this explain away Paula Abdul's entire career? She had hit after hit before they changed their tabulation method in the early 90s and had another song flying up the charts. That song dropped like a rock and she never had another hit!

I don't know, Semoochie. If that record was shipped before Billboard used Soundscan but hit the wall when the switch was made, then it would be a perfect example.

But looking at her chart history, I'm seeing a pretty typical erosion for an artist...the last #1 single, followed by a number 6, then 16, 19, 28, 58, 112...

As for explaining away her entire career, probably not. Go back to my original post:

...any record that made the Top 10 by climbing over a period of several weeks probably was legit. Those chart jumps and bullets ("Stars", as Billboard called them) were indicative of more orders for a record being made this week than the week before. Sometimes that could be accomplished simply by more stores placing first-time orders...but the longer the timespan, the more likely it was that the stores were replacing stock that they had sold to paying customers.

Even records that debuted big fast (a new Beatles, for example) were probably legit if they stayed high on the charts for a certain period of time.

 

[Thomps2525]

The Beatles. Wasn't that the group Paul McCartney was in before Wings? Anyway, Can't Buy Me Love debuted at #27 on the Billboard Hot 100 for the week ending March 28, 1964. It went to number one the following week. I used to think that was a huge jump...until 2008 when Britney Spears' Womanizer jumped from #96 to number one. And then a year later, Kelly Clarkson's My Life Would Suck Without You jumped from #97 to number one! Michael, do you consider those two jumps to be "legit"?

So far, there have been 22 songs that debuted at number one, from Michael Jackson's You Are Not Alone in 1995 to Taylor Swift's Shake It Off in 2014.

 

[michael hagerty]

The Beatles. Wasn't that the group Paul McCartney was in before Wings? Anyway, Can't Buy Me Love debuted at #27 on the Billboard Hot 100 for the week ending March 28, 1964. It went to number one the following week. I used to think that was a huge jump...until 2008 when Britney Spears' Womanizer jumped from #96 to number one. And then a year later, Kelly Clarkson's My Life Would Suck Without You jumped from #97 to number one! Michael, do you consider those two jumps to be "legit"?

So far, there have been 22 songs that debuted at number one, from Michael Jackson's You Are Not Alone in 1995 to Taylor Swift's Shake It Off in 2014.

Steve, I'm not sure. Those songs may have been pumped up by airplay stats. It also takes way fewer sales and downloads to hit #1 these days.

My post was about Billboard's chart methodology before the fall of '81, which covers most of the music most of us in this thread grew up with.

 

[Thomps2525]

"Set the Waybac machine, Sherman." "What year, Mr. Peabody?" I checked all the 1950-54 Billboard Best Sellers charts which reflected retail sales and there were no songs that jumped to number one from outside the top ten. Most songs that reached number one took from eight to 15 weeks to get there, which is a very long time considering that the list had only 30 positions. Two songs took only two weeks to hit the top spot. Brace yourself! The Thing by Phil Harris debuted at #5 in late November 1950 and went to number one the following week. Stan Freberg's Dragnet parody, St. George & The Dragonet, debuted at #8 in October 1953 and went to number one the following week. Leroy Anderson's Blue Tango didn't reach number one until its nineteenth week on the Top 30. It spent five weeks at number one and was on the Top 30 for 38 weeks!

 

[TheBigA]

It spent five weeks at number one and was on the Top 30 for 38 weeks!

Eddy Arnold did the exact same thing in 1947, and then followed it with another song that spent 46 weeks in the chart and 21 weeks at #1.

That held the record for the most weeks in the chart until just a few years ago.

 

[michael hagerty]

"Set the Waybac machine, Sherman." "What year, Mr. Peabody?" I checked all the 1950-54 Billboard Best Sellers charts which reflected retail sales and there were no songs that jumped to number one from outside the top ten. Most songs that reached number one took from eight to 15 weeks to get there, which is a very long time considering that the list had only 30 positions. Two songs took only two weeks to hit the top spot. Brace yourself! The Thing by Phil Harris debuted at #5 in late November 1950 and went to number one the following week. Stan Freberg's Dragnet parody, St. George & The Dragonet, debuted at #8 in October 1953 and went to number one the following week. Leroy Anderson's Blue Tango didn't reach number one until its nineteenth week on the Top 30. It spent five weeks at number one and was on the Top 30 for 38 weeks!

And now, Steve, you've gone to the other side...before the rock/pop era and the explosion in 45 RPM singles sales.

Checking Billboard's June 19, 1954 issue, they describe their methodology of the time thus:

"Results are based on The Billboard's weekly survey among the nation's top volume record dealers representing every important market area."

Translated, that means the one or two big retailers in each of probably ten cities, which in 1954 would have been New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Detroit, Baltimore, Cleveland, St. Louis, Washington, D.C. and Boston.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

"Set the Waybac machine, Sherman." "What year, Mr. Peabody?" I checked all the 1950-54 Billboard Best Sellers charts which reflected retail sales and there were no songs that jumped to number one from outside the top ten. Most songs that reached number one took from eight to 15 weeks to get there, which is a very long time considering that the list had only 30 positions. Two songs took only two weeks to hit the top spot. Brace yourself! The Thing by Phil Harris debuted at #5 in late November 1950 and went to number one the following week. Stan Freberg's Dragnet parody, St. George & The Dragonet, debuted at #8 in October 1953 and went to number one the following week. Leroy Anderson's Blue Tango didn't reach number one until its nineteenth week on the Top 30. It spent five weeks at number one and was on the Top 30 for 38 weeks!

Wind up your radios Dementites and Dementoids because... The Doctor Is IN!!