badjef said:
jmtillery said:
Using that logic every radio station on the planet would be perpetually new.
Yes, to somebody who hadn't heard an origional song,
The reality is any radio station over a certain age is no longer new but rather it becomes heritage, even if you don't like the station. The fact that it has lasted for many years qualifies the station as an established heritage station and is no longer "new". A station cannot be "new" and heritage at the same time which goes to basic logic.
Logic takes a back seat to marketing and perception.
Nothing "can be" and "cannot be" at the same time. It either "is" or it "isn't" but not both. Would you call WFLA "New" using your example? Although WFLA along with every Tampa Bay radio medium technically can be argued as "New" to a newcomer, the fact remains the station in question is not really new as it has been established for many years.
WFLA isn't new but it concentrates on new(s), or new news. Although, late at night there is no news or very little of it. The station is just there.
While I agree with your assesment, I would pose a different angle: Could a "heritage" station such as WMMR, should they concentrate only on breaking new rock releases, call themselves "new"?
Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!
You bring up an interesting point that causes one to really think about this topic at hand.
First of all we are both correct in our assessment of what is "new" and what isn't. However we have differing views because we are both looking at the same situation from a different perspective. Allow me to explain:
You are viewing "New" from a newcomer's point of view, meaning someone who has never heard what is coined as new. Looking at it this way, you are correct in that it would be new.
I, on the other hand, am looking at it from a long term perspective, meaning, someone who has been aware of what is coined as "New" for a long period of time. From this perspective what is termed as new isn't new at all.
Using your previous example of an established, hertitage FM station playing only "New" rock music, we have actually two images at play. 1) The station itself is heritage and is not new; and, 2) The format is new and not heritage. Using this example, if the heritage station is playing nothing but new music indefinately and continuously updating the playlist to reflect ONLY new music, I would rather hear the imaging and positioning statement along the line of "Cutting Edge Music" rather than "New". My reasoning for this is because, to me, to use the term "New" implies the station itself is new when in fact it is not. However the music is continuously updated and is always on the "cutting edge". This keeps an established station fresh, new (formatically) and exciting.
Another possibility regarding
The Point and
Magic overusing the term
new, may have something to do with making the listeners feel young. By way of example, the music on
The Point is from the "80s which is far from new. And anyone who remembers the '80s music when it
was new is well into their 40s, 50s and even 60 now. When the music was new, most listeners were in their teens and early 20s; maybe some were in their early 30s. If we take the early '80s music from 1980 to 1985, we are talking 25-30 years ago. A person who was 30 in 1980 will be 60 this year. By
The Point referencing 30 year old music and the station itself as "New" may create the facade that the listener, for a moment, is back in their youth. I realize that, in a way, this is a stretch, but there may be some validity to the theory. Most everyone, with some exceptions, want to remain young.
In summary, we are both actually correct in our assessment. We have just been looking at the same situation from a differing perspective.
