• 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

More on putting all your eggs into the tested basket.

R

Radio_Realist

Guest
I just checked out another discussion forum on Voyforums dedicated to Pittsburgh Radio, called "Pittsburgh Radio Nostalgia". I saw this post made by Ed Weigle:

"It doesn't surprise me that "Hill" got airplay in LA. For myriad reasons, many other songs from Porky's, Mad Mike's or Terry Lee's playlists ("Someone" by The Contrails and "Need You" by Johnny Jack come to my mind, immediately) may have tended to get a smattering of airplay on both coasts, but skip the whole middle portion of the country. Ronnie Haig's "controversial" record, "Don't You Here Me Calling Baby"--the one which is unjustly accused of dropping the f-bomb in the closing 20 seconds--received it's only major airplay on Porky's show and in his native Indianapolis (where Ronnie's still gigging). At least that record got him into the Rockabilly Hall of Fame! I would assume that the main reason for this was that the smaller labels simply didn't have the promotional budget or manpower-- perhaps even the interest--to shop the record effectively. Remember also, for political reasons, the "better" side of a record was often relegated to the B-side. Were it not for the great jocks above, who were not afraid to flip a 45 over, and essentially defined "The Pittsburgh Sound," many great records would be completely forgotten.

"I'm sure there are many scenarios for why an artist or their record never achieved ultimate popularity. There was one artist, who I won't name, who had an uncle who was, shall we say, "well connected" uncle. The uncle personally asked Morris Levy (of the Roulette Records empire, and it's other official and non-official subsidiaries) to assure his nephew "had a good time." In this case, although the kid was a hell of a talent, the label obviously never took him seriously. When Cameo-Parkway actually signed him, Levy convinced his agent to cancel the deal in exchange for a paltry sum of money and thus ruined a deal which could have put this artist over the top, in the same stable with Bobby Rydell, Chubby Checker and the most popular stars of the day. Back then, Morris Levy was not a man to cross (Just ask Jimmy Rodgers of "Honeycomb" fame: When he was found in his car one day in 1967 with the skull fracture that basically ended his career, it was alleged to be a retailiation for defying Morris Levy). As a result, he fell into obscurity and lived on a shoestring. Understadably, it used to irritate him immensely when he saw his records continue to sell for big bucks at collector shows."

End quoted material.

I don't know who Ed Weigle is, but from his other posts, he's somebody in the radio industary who knows a good bit about how the industry works. Therefore, I think his observations about the fact that lots of good songs from back in the day didn't become hits only because of poor promotion, or the actions of record company suits have a great deal of merit.

Which comes back to my constant lament, which is that stations dedicated to playing songs that have the sound of a bygone era keep playing the same few "hits" over and over and over and over and over, and won't play any music from those eras that sound just as good, and that audiences who like old stuff would like today AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HITS BACK IN THE DAY IF IT WEREN'T FOR STUFF LIKE WHAT PEOPLE LIKE MORRIS LEVY DID.

And now, all the usual suspects can tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, while their stations' listeners keep abandoning broadcast radio in increasing droves and switching to Sirius or XM satellite radio or to iPODS. And when they've driven the last broadcast station into the dirt, and they've all been replaced with voice tracking and computer generated playlists, they'll STILL tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
 
> And now, all the usual suspects can tell me that I don't
> know what I'm talking about, while their stations' listeners
> keep abandoning broadcast radio in increasing droves and
> switching to Sirius or XM satellite radio or to iPODS. And
> when they've driven the last broadcast station into the
> dirt, and they've all been replaced with voice tracking and
> computer generated playlists, they'll STILL tell me I don't
> know what I'm talking about.
>


The difference that you, like everyone on these boards who makes the same arguments doesn't get, is the numbers.

A terrestrial radio station is limited by the size of its market, and has to generate revenue from national and local ad dollars. They get their national buys and set their rates by getting ratings ("proving" the size of their audience).

To make any kind of money, a station usually has to rank around the top 5 in a target demo. For instance, Steel City's business plan is to keep the overhead really low, and stay around the top 5 in adult women with LTJ and men with RRK. It works.

The bigger the market, the more money available for a small audience. There are stations in NY that rank 30th making way more money than mid-pack stations in medium markets. Numbers.

XM has 260 million potential listeners. They're in market #1, so to speak. And they aren't selling ads, they're charging admission. They are also operating by an 80/20 rule, that 80% of their audience is listening to 20% of their programming. The rest of these niche formats are window dressing, and if 12 people are listening THEY DON'T CARE. If 2 million people paid $10 to have the service for the month, that's more than most terrestrial stations bill in a year. After the top 5 in Pittsburgh, all the rest of the market might not add up to that in billing for a year.

2 million subrscribers in a market of 268 million is about a .7 share. A terrestrial radio station with a .7 has to broker time to preachers and polka shows on the weekends. Spots are $10.

It can't work, it won't work, the masses will listen to DVE and the same 300 songs over and over.

<P ID="signature">______________
"With God as my witness, I could have sworn turkeys could fly."</P>
 
> > And now, all the usual suspects can tell me that I don't
> > know what I'm talking about, while their stations'
> listeners
> > keep abandoning broadcast radio in increasing droves and
> > switching to Sirius or XM satellite radio or to iPODS. And
>
> > when they've driven the last broadcast station into the
> > dirt, and they've all been replaced with voice tracking
> and
> > computer generated playlists, they'll STILL tell me I
> don't
> > know what I'm talking about.
> >
>
>
> The difference that you, like everyone on these boards who
> makes the same arguments doesn't get, is the numbers.
>
> A terrestrial radio station is limited by the size of its
> market, and has to generate revenue from national and local
> ad dollars. They get their national buys and set their rates
> by getting ratings ("proving" the size of their audience).
>
> To make any kind of money, a station usually has to rank
> around the top 5 in a target demo. For instance, Steel
> City's business plan is to keep the overhead really low, and
> stay around the top 5 in adult women with LTJ and men with
> RRK. It works.
>
> The bigger the market, the more money available for a small
> audience. There are stations in NY that rank 30th making way
> more money than mid-pack stations in medium markets.
> Numbers.
>
> XM has 260 million potential listeners. They're in market
> #1, so to speak. And they aren't selling ads, they're
> charging admission. They are also operating by an 80/20
> rule, that 80% of their audience is listening to 20% of
> their programming. The rest of these niche formats are
> window dressing, and if 12 people are listening THEY DON'T
> CARE. If 2 million people paid $10 to have the service for
> the month, that's more than most terrestrial stations bill
> in a year. After the top 5 in Pittsburgh, all the rest of
> the market might not add up to that in billing for a year.
>
> 2 million subrscribers in a market of 268 million is about a
> .7 share. A terrestrial radio station with a .7 has to
> broker time to preachers and polka shows on the weekends.
> Spots are $10.
>
> It can't work, it won't work, the masses will listen to DVE
> and the same 300 songs over and over.
>

Horribly depressing.

And positively true.
 
> It can't work, it won't work, the masses will listen to DVE
> and the same 300 songs over and over.

That sounds like the exact same argument that the radio network executives used in the late 40's and early 50's when television started to reared its head. They all said that radio would continue to do best by continuing to air the same sort of scripted programs that it always ran, and the "make believe ballroom" programs or disc jockeys playing records would NEVER replace scripted radio comedies, dramas, game shows, and variety programs.

Besides, as always, whenever I advocate changing from a playlist of only 300 songs to a playlist of 300 songs in heavy rotation with just an additional 10 thrown in for a wee bit of variety, the response presumes that I'm advocating total free form, 3,000 song playlists. But then, if I don't "get it" about the numbers, I shouldn't be surprised that no one "gets it" when I advocate just loosening things up a little bit, and assumes I'm pushing for something else.

Besides, my idea to expands playlists a little bit makes too much sense to shoot down. So, instead, everyone who responds ends up changing what I'm advocating into something totally different, which is an easier target to shoot down.

I don't see how anyone can honestly believe that a station that gets a certain ratings share would lose listeners by expanding their playlists by 3% to include a few more songs that really sounded good. And any PD who can't tell by listening to a song whether or not it sounds good enough that audiences who like similar songs wouldn't also like that new song is in the wrong business.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom