Nabco Expires, Saga Jumps The Gun

[gabigley1]

Since I'm a Studio Capitan at WCRS LPFM and producer our turnout for the Amy Goodman event on Good Friday was great for a low power community radio station over 200 people came. true it was on a holiday, but still a good turnout. The money we raised will go to new towers.

New Towers where ???

 

[willcail]

Same locations, Marble Cliff around Grandview Ohio for 98.3 and Morse Road for 102.1. just better towers than the current one.

 

[Neanderpaul]

Although I may agree with you on the idea that radio is over-researched. I'm going to address your points here and perhaps you'll get some answrs. They may not be what you want to read. but, they will turn out to be the truth.

1) When Eddie Vedder's "Big Hard Sun" was released, I yelled at everyone within earshot that we (the Blitz) should be playing that song. Sure, it was an Eddie Vedder solo song but let's be real, it was Pearl Jam. Now here you are with a station that relies heavily on Pearl Jam's back catalogue and you are NOT going to play the best Pearl Jam song in a decade? Why? It has exactly what every program director should be looking for when you are running a new rock format, a song that is both new, but more importantly, familiar. You don't have to break it, it's broke, it's there, it's fresh while being immediately recognizable. Alas my cries fell upon deaf ears and I turned it up every time I heard 106.7 play it. Reminds me of when I was doing mornings in Baltimore with WIYY the "heritage" rock station and Russ Mottla PD laughed at me when I implored him to add Bruce Springsteen's "Philidelphia" to the place list. You're the "heritage" rock station and you don't add the new Springteen? Who the f**k is more heritage than him? Well, the song went on to win an Oscar and Mottla went on to the unemployment line. Dump research! You don't need research to tell you that if Eddie Vedder puts out a great Pearl Jam song, and you are "New Rock" you play it!

...."great" is your subjective opinion. The reality is, that song isn't doing anything. Anywhere.

No station in America has played the song more than 170 times. It's getting less than 2 spins/day on average. The audience doesn't care. It's been out 4 months and is primarily played at AAA. Not Rock, Not Alternative. Mostly AAA. That means it's not considered a "great" or "new" song by Rock listeners. And, neither was the Springsteen song. Yes, it is a great piece of music. But, it wasn't something Rock listeners wanted on their favorite station. When choosing the new music to play on a Rock station, you must be true to the brand. You must satisfy the audience's expectations for what they want from your station. That new Eddie Vedder song isn't it. The people have spoken. Nationally. If they wanted the song, it would be getting played. This may not be what you want to hear. But that's how it works. The song got run up the flagpole. Nobody saluted.

2) Think outside of the box and outside of research enough to play within that same format a great "rock" song like Queens of the Stone Age's "Go With The Flow." Sure some may say it's alternative but that line is blurred in this modern age.

Another fine example of narrow-thinking. Here's the horrible thing you're going to read in this post. We are no longer in the music education business. We are in the mass-appeal business. The masses decide what we play. And Queens...aren't mass-appeal. Nickelback...sells millions. Queens? Not so much. And we cater to the largest audience possible. That's what business does. It serves the largest customer base possible.

Why didn't we play the new Cult?

Because the masses didn't crave new Cult music.

Why didn't we play Kings Of Leon?

Because it doesn't serve the brand of (at the time) The Blitz.

They are as legitimately rock as anything else the Blitz played and more so than The Beastie Boys and Red Hot Chili Peppers that we played too much of. Bottom line, don't let listeners dictate the play list, don't let research dictate the play list, let the music dictate the play list.

Did you really just say this? "don't let listeners dictate the play list"

Just to illustrate the (because I'm trying to be nice) "questionable thinking" being presented with this one statement, I'd like you to read this:

"Don't let the buyer decide the options on their car."
"Don't let the patron choose their meal"
"Don't let people think for themselves"

If we were to actually enact this concept. We'd be programming to the cast of "Hi Fidelity." And all 6 of them would complain we weren't cool enough.

And who wants to buy ad time on a station with 6 listeners?

I agree that we need to make radio cooler. We need to expose new music. But, there needs to be a balance. People LOVE Led Zeppelin Mo. They LOVE Metallica's "Enter Sandman" We shouldn't deny them what they love. We should do a better job of exposing them to the right new songs between the songs they love. The key to doing this, is to hire knowledgeable, music-savvy people. Professionals who can connect with the audience. Who the audience believes in to serve them the best music. And who the audience trusts will only give them what they want. And will stop playing the songs they don't. We don't do that. We serve them "ten in a row" and "the most new rock." The audience doesn't really want those things. Those are silly buzzwords that some marketing ****** dropped into a focus group, and says "makes us sound hip." No listeners you run into, will ever tell you they listen because you play "non-stop rock blocks." They just want the best music. New? Old? It doesn't matter. They just want what they want.

Sounding hip, and dictating pop culture is not what radio is supposed to do. it's supposed to be the place where pop culture goes to be among their own. Somewhere along the line, we stopped listening to them, and started telling them what was cool. It never works like that. We can give them something unfamiliar, and try to get them to embrace it. But, we have to accept that they will only embrace what they want. And when they do...we must give it to them. The audience are the only people we should listen to.

Your concept couldn't be more wrong.

If I heard one more time how the Blitz listeners would go for such a song I was going to throw up. The Blitz listeners weren't going anywhere because that was the only station playing what they wanted to hear, thusly, expand the playlist and the narrow minds of many that listened to the Blitz and tell them, this is a great song, deal with it.

And that line of thinking will get you nowhere. If their only outlet doesn't play what they want to hear, they don't listen. And the people want to hear Nickleback. There's no dictating taste. There is, serving their wants. That's our job. Hurts don't it?

 

[jakej]

You keep on believing whatever you want to believe, Neanderpaul, and I'll keep on watching commercial radio and its revenues and its total listenership go right down the stinkin' toilet.

 

[Browns17]

Jakej I totally agree with you. If the programmers were giving listeners what they wanted how does NABCO explain the steady delcine in ratings since the programing switch on 99.7 and WTDA? Once 99.7 went back to playing Rush and ACDC I quit listening.
Also if I recall correctly they dumped Stern early, so they could get a more local morning show to their listeners. Grego did pretty well and so did Mo and Blazor until they pumped the program with 55 minutes of music per hour. They were dumped for what, Bob and Tom , how local are they??

 

[dawg4life]

NABCO you suck. I miss the Blitz and I'm surprised nobody else has flipped to active rock and completely destroyed you for being stupid.

Browns17, Sipe or Edwards?

 

[Browns17]

Sipe

Quote from post above:
"I agree that we need to make radio cooler. We need to expose new music. But, there needs to be a balance. People LOVE Led Zeppelin Mo. They LOVE Metallica's "Enter Sandman" We shouldn't deny them what they love."

We can here those songs (and like 95% of the other songs 99.7 now plays) on QFM. If people really want to hear those songs, I'm sure they know QFM plays them.

 

[Neanderpaul]

You keep on believing whatever you want to believe, Neanderpaul, and I'll keep on watching commercial radio and its revenues and its total listenership go right down the stinkin' toilet.

Hmm. Scarborough's 2008 survey actually shows Rock radio listenership is up? How can that be? I mean you just said its listenership is going "down the stinkin toilet."

Let's look at the actual statistics. You know, the things that prove your assertions.

12.7 million people are listening to Rock stations weekly. Which is really only 2.1% of total radio listening. But, it is up over the past two years. And the numbers are even higher for Classic Rock. Overall, I think a 3% attrition over a decade (97-'07) is something almost every business would willingly accept. However, it is nice to see that male listenership rose in cume ratings. Even though listenership is off 6%. Given all of that, the figure of 94% of all men in America, and 96% of all women (and I even rounded down for you) listen to radio every week.

Would you please show me another media that for the cost, reaches more of America than that? A larger percentage? Let's look at television:

According to Nationmaster stats...there are 219,million television sets in the US. Compared to 575 million radios. The avg. American views 4 hours of total TV per day.

So...safe to say TV has smaller numbers, but with the penetration of Cable, Satellite, and other video media. It's impossible to know exactly who's watching what. I think it would be foolish to think more people listen to radio than watch TV. So, I'll concede TV viewership, simply due to the fact that it is a group-social activity whereas radio tends to be solitary.

However...Let's look at cost per expense. Is TV returning 40% on each dollar? No. it certainly isn't. It' s far more expensive to advertise on TV than radio.

So...profit margins in radio are also higher than TV.

As a businessman...if you told me advertising nationally could expose my product to 95% of ALL Americans ( I took the male/female percentages, and came to that avg.) for less than the (assumed) 99% of Americans who watch TV each week. I'd be willing to take that trade off.


And the most recent reports list the figure of 93%. So, I'll even take that number. 93% is a good avg. Most businesses would kill for that kind of penetration.

 

[Neanderpaul]

Sipe

Quote from post above:
"I agree that we need to make radio cooler. We need to expose new music. But, there needs to be a balance. People LOVE Led Zeppelin Mo. They LOVE Metallica's "Enter Sandman" We shouldn't deny them what they love."

We can here those songs (and like 95% of the other songs 99.7 now plays) on QFM. If people really want to hear those songs, I'm sure they know QFM plays them.

Again. The station that does it better will win. If Q serves Zeppelin, followed by Seger. And, The Rock serves Zeppelin followed by Disturbed. The listener has a choice. And take into consideration the personality. One person says "here's Zeppelin." The other..."From Zeppelin 4, a song originally recorded at BronYaur (Pronounced "Brawn Ryer" BTW) about the labrador that used to come 'round beggin for food" Who did a better job of making the same song sound more interesting? If you're a Zeppelin fan, you think the guy who sold the song better, shares your passion for the band, and you build credibility.

Call me old fashioned...But that matters. If you love music, you want to know the guy who's giving it to you does too. And then you begin to go to them for all of your music-related questions. And you win if you're that guy.

They can get the songs anywhere...they cannot get what comes between the songs anywhere else.

That....is how you win.

I'll take the exact same songs you get. I'll put better imaging, better talent, and better shuffling of the songs.

And I will win. Because I believe we are better than you. And we will work harder. And we will politic to serve the audience better.

 

[Browns17]

"I'll take the exact same songs you get. I'll put better imaging, better talent, and better shuffling of the songs.
And I will win. Because I believe we are better than you. And we will work harder. And we will politic to serve the audience better."

If that is the case, "Better talent" then why other than loyalty do they have most of the same Jocks as the Blitz did? I can not tell what you believe is wrong, but the numbers since the switch speak for themself.

If I listen to a rock station, I listen because of the music it plays, not the intros to the songs. Shut up and play music, there is no reason to talk up a 1981 song from ACDC.

 

[Neanderpaul]

"I'll take the exact same songs you get. I'll put better imaging, better talent, and better shuffling of the songs.
And I will win. Because I believe we are better than you. And we will work harder. And we will politic to serve the audience better."

If that is the case, "Better talent" then why other than loyalty do they have most of the same Jocks as the Blitz did? I can not tell what you believe is wrong, but the numbers since the switch speak for themself.

If I listen to a rock station, I listen because of the music it plays, not the intros to the songs. Shut up and play music, there is no reason to talk up a 1981 song from ACDC.

Sure there is. Every day, someone new is being exposed to AC/DC. Good stations grow new audience for when they shed old audience. This is why we see Avenged Sevenfold wearing Iron Maiden T-shirts. Suddenly, Avenged Sevenfold fans are interested in Iron Maiden. So, the station that can sell Iron Maiden, will capture their attention. The "shut up & play the music" mentality is the vocal minority. Sorry to deflate your bubble. If personality is so unimportant, then why do you all spend so much time ripping them apart.

Again. People don't listen to radio for the music. They listen to feel connected to the music. Those that have this figured out, are winning.

It really is that easy. We tend to overthink this stuff.

 

[V.Riley]

If personality is so unimportant, then why do you all spend so much time ripping them apart.

Again. People don't listen to radio for the music. They listen to feel connected to the music. Those that have this figured out, are winning.

It really is that easy. We tend to overthink this stuff.

I think this is ONE of the reasons TED-FM failed. They had the music, but no DJs, no personalities to bond with. That and their variety of music seemed to be a collection of only 200 songs (if that).

 

[RickSklar77]

Again. People don't listen to radio for the music. They listen to feel connected to the music. Those that have this figured out, are winning.

That's one of the best quotes I've EVER read on all of Radio-Info.

 

[Neanderpaul]

Again. People don't listen to radio for the music. They listen to feel connected to the music. Those that have this figured out, are winning.

That's one of the best quotes I've EVER read on all of Radio-Info.

Thank you. More often than not, I'm a blowhard. But...every once in a while I yank out a nugget.

 

[Nu_Roo_2]

Again. People don't listen to radio for the music. They listen to feel connected to the music. Those that have this figured out, are winning.

That's one of the best quotes I've EVER read on all of Radio-Info.

Thank you. More often than not, I'm a blowhard. But...every once in a while I yank out a nugget.

Sorry, but I think it's actually a ridiculous statement *as phrased*.  Of course people listen to radio for the music!  The "feel connected" part might be more true for contemporary-music-based formats, but it is a gross over-generalization.  Most music radio listeners I know just want the disc jockeys to shut up.  100%.  Except for weather, traffic and maybe a little news.  When I turn on the radio, it is mostly because I want to hear good music, not to "feel connected."  In fact, the *escape* from feeling connected -- i.e., block out my woes and the woes of the country/world and get lost in the music -- has a huge appeal to me.

All that said, I think radio's ability to provide a full experience -- whether "connection", information, companionship, humor, local awareness, whatever, *is* one of the primary advantages it has over jukebox-type music-delivery service.

Music is still absolutely the key for most (not all) music-based formats.  Much more so than providing any sense of connection to the music.  But getting the other elements right can provide a big competitive advantage over other stations and media.

So the non-music elements can be key to a franchise.  But the flat-out assertion, " People don't listen to radio for the music. They listen to feel connected to the music." is a ridiculous and incorrect over-generalization-- *as phrased*.

 

[MichaelMcCoy]

...it may be an oversimplification, but Neanderpaul's statement is 100% correct... it doesn't mean you can play crap music (no WLZT comments please - we all know how enlightened you are ), but it does mean that music is not enough... people have so many ways to hear exactly what they want, in the order they want, without commercials... what radio has that no other media has (when live & local) is the ability to immediately develop and maintain a relationship with a listener on a personal level... couple that with a well-put-together playlist and you have greatness...

 

[Nu_Roo_2]

...it may be an oversimplification, but Neanderpaul's statement is 100% correct... it doesn't mean you can play crap music (no WLZT comments please - we all know how enlightened you are ), but it does mean that music is not enough... people have so many ways to hear exactly what they want, in the order they want, without commercials... what radio has that no other media has (when live & local) is the ability to immediately develop and maintain a relationship with a listener on a personal level... couple that with a well-put-together playlist and you have greatness...

I agree 100%.

Although I am disappointed I can't say anything about WLZT. It's difficult to hold back all the ;D ;D ;D compliments ;D ;D ;D.