'Non-Current' Radio Programming

[jnorth]

Not sure the exact name on it, but I'm referring to stations that don't play any new music such as Oldies, Classic Rock, Classic Hits..

I'm a radio enthusiast. I'm quite familiar with programming playlists for 'current' stations as I will call them. ie; Top 40 with the normal gold stuff.. Have done lots of reading , and have a great book on programming as well..

The thing is, mostly everything I can find relates to programming these 'current' formats.

I'm interested in learning a bit about the non-current format. What music 'categories' are popular to be used (ie Gold, Recurrent) and some strategies on how to keep things sounding fresh while using only a library that never sees new additions.

Are there any websites or books out there that touch on this programming type?


Thanks in advance!

 

[adam502002]

I know this isn't the answer to the question, but I don't really see non-current radio as a library that never sees new additions... I think of a non-current station as a music mix that is placed back in time x amount of years... Say 25 years, for instance. It's 2011, so that station has made it to 1986 at this point. Next year, it will have new additions in the mix from '87.

I understand what you are saying, too. We don't play those 1987 songs in high rotation--because they aren't in reality "new" anymore.

I think that's the problem with all "non-current" formats. Which old songs should be played most? Then, should we change them out? They will get run in the mill quickly if not...

I work at a Hot-AC (on a network playing mostly all current, with a few 80s/90s in the mix) and it seems the network programming tends to use a very small 80's library for our non-current mix. I think if there were so many great HIT songs in the 80's...why are we only playing these? Sure they tested well, but more variety would keep it fresh, in my opinion.

I'm not sure about categories and other words for recurrent-type or gold categories in non-current radio, but I've always personally programmed into categories labeled based on rotation - "high," "secondary," "often," "occasional," "rarely played," etc.

Perhaps just categories A, B, C, D, etc. would be much simpler...it's dawning on me now! Either way, determining which non-current songs belong in which category, I don't have your answer. I think the bigger the hit made it is a factor...You would play a former no. 1 more often then something that only reached no.10. But the markets vary, and you also need to think about the sound you want for your station...which classic genre would you like to lean? Do you want an overall upbeat tempo, or something more calm? It's all about where the station wants to place itself in the surrounding market. Be sure to keep the station original and sat aside from all the others.

 

[davideduardo]

Perhaps just categories A, B, C, D, etc. would be much simpler...it's dawning on me now! Either way, determining which non-current songs belong in which category, I don't have your answer. I think the bigger the hit made it is a factor...You would play a former no. 1 more often then something that only reached no.10.

It's really simple. You have to think about songs in terms of how much listeners want to hear each one today, not how big the song was back then. There are Top 5 songs that are unplayble, and some from around 15th or 20th that people want to hear now.

Ask the listeners, and they will tell you. And there are plenty of research companies that will do the "listener asking" and tabulate and cross tab the music so you can make easy decision on playability.

 

[adam502002]

[ There are Top 5 songs that are unplayable, and some from around 15th or 20th that people want to hear now.

Agree. The Celine Dion - My Heart Will Go On makes a great example...a #1 in '98 I believe, but it's not something to play on the air every day.

I simply said how big a song was is a factor, that's all. The chart position doesn't necessarily take the cake, but I think a non-current song should seem familiar if you are going to play it, that was all my point was in that.

Research does show which songs should be played but research is also the reason you hear the same songs run-in-the-mill and repeated on non-current stations every day, rather than spicing things up with something you haven't heard on the radio in a while. Listener research simply hasn't seemed to provide a huge variety of songs...and listeners often complain about lack of variety (or brag on great variety, depending on the station).

 

[jnorth]

Thanks for the great insight. This is very interesting.

Sure 'non-current' radio may not "never" see new additions, but it certainly isn't like the current formats. My mentality is of current formats (ie; add the new songs, move them up, move them down into gold or remove them, etc). So for a non-current format which doesn't really work the same way, I wonder how they are programmed.

Like has been brought up here, do you pick the "best" songs and have those constantly playing most often, or over time do you move songs in and out of categories to give some a bit of a rest and create some variety?

Just seems odd to me to think of a station starting a non-current library, and then just letting it run indefinitely.. There must be some techniques programmers use to keep a library sounding fresh, even with few new additions. Maybe I am wrong here! That's what makes me curious.

 

[davideduardo]

Research does show which songs should be played but research is also the reason you hear the same songs run-in-the-mill and repeated on non-current stations every day, rather than spicing things up with something you haven't heard on the radio in a while. Listener research simply hasn't seemed to provide a huge variety of songs...and listeners often complain about lack of variety (or brag on great variety, depending on the station).

Research is the reason why stations play songs listeners want to hear and don't play songs they don't want to hear.

Complaints about repetition come when a station plays stiffs... when you hear a song you do not like "often" that is repetition. Nobody complains when they hear their favorite song, though.

We often find that the stations perceived as having the most variety are CHR stations which play around 100 hits and recurrents. Because this kind of station is sensitive to burn-out and stiffing-out, and many do ongoing research weekly, there are few if any klunkers on the air. Variety means "they play all my favorite songs" and it also means "and when I tune in, they are always playing one of them."

I've never seen a case where a station in direct competition with another in the same format has won by playing a lot more songs. Anecdotally, I was with a station that did classic rock and had a 500 song library and was overwhelmingly #1 in a market of around 17 million; a new station came on playing around 1,800 songs. They never got even 10% of our shares, and in a year and a half, were gone to another format.

 

[flashback]

^ its a shame that a station with less songs seems to do better then a station with more songs.one would think that the variaty would bring more listoners.you would think the burn out factor on the bigger playlist station would be less.

i`m talking about the same format on each station and the same basic kind of sound on each.

 

[JbeJay]

> "... over time do you move songs in and out of categories to give some a bit of a rest and create some variety?"

Yes, that is the concept of "platoons" of songs. Some or all of your library is subdivided into groups that are moved in and out. Each group may ideally have the same cross-section -- genre, tempo, era, whatever categorization you may use -- as your overall library. That is, moving platoon A out and platoon B in is not intended to change the sound of the station. What it does, however, is to give A a rest and to play B for awhile.

Another way to force a "rest" period is for your music-scheduling program to take a song out after xx number of plays. That puts it into a "rest" category until you move it back into an active category (ie, available again to be scheduled). One possible downside of this method, though, is that you then need to keep an eye on the total balance of the songs that are active. If a particular type of song schedules more easily, all of those songs may go through their xx number of plays more quickly; if they all go into a "rest" category quickly, you have lost those songs, and then the sound of the station may be different unless you replenish them.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

just a thought..... pick the brain of a person responsible for creating the programming "mix" for a classical music station. Maybe the same concepts would transfer over to programming music from recent decades of the popular genres.

One of the things I hear them do is feature the music of a given composer on his (in classical it is almost always HIS) birthday.

There must be other "hooks" that are rather natural.

Since having a person talking on the radio was the "in thing" back when "non current" music was current, it may not only be acceptable to let a few spoken words set the tone of non-current music... it may come close to being a MUST.

This past week contained the First Day of Spring. I think I would have dug up every song in the non-current world that had some reference to Spring. We are about to enter April. If I were programming a non-current station you can bet I would round up all the April Showers tunes I could find, even if it meant including a few from decades I didn't normally include and have them ready for the first rainy day of the month.

What is the old adage: "Less if More." I wouldn't drown the music with spoken words the way you would go to Waffle House and put Maple Syrup on pancakes like they put gravy on biscuits. Just 'garnish the plate' a little bit like the classic French restaurant down the block.

 

[davideduardo]

^ its a shame that a station with less songs seems to do better then a station with more songs.one would think that the variaty would bring more listoners.you would think the burn out factor on the bigger playlist station would be less.

The perception of variety increases in inverse proportion to the number of songs in the library. Excess songs are stiffs, with less than consensus appeal.

The further apart each listener's favorite songs are, the lower the TSL.

 

[GeneSavage]

David, maybe you can help me explain what JbeJay described about resting groups of songs.

I know this is an extremely common practice in radio, but I've never understood WHY.

If these songs are all previous hits, if these songs are all about equally popular, why wouldn't you dump them ALL into rotation at once and let it be an extremely slow rotating category of decent songs?

Wouldn't that create the same lack of burnout?

It seems like rotating in and out small groups of songs almost guarantees that your P1s are going to burn on each group of songs before your more typical listener gets tired of them and you move them out to rest (and burn another set).

It strikes me as ill-advised as a "trick" I've seen some stations do where they play their overnight songs again the next morning or visa-versa with the idea that it will be different audiences and allow you to rotate through all of your hits in the daytime slots... you better be sure you're not burning out P1s who are up late or up early!

I respect your knowledge and experience quite a bit; even when we have disagreed in the past, it was impossible to "just dismiss" what you say.

I'm hoping you can shed some light on what has always seemed to me like counter-intuitive and self-destructive practices on the part of so, so many (and many GREAT) radio stations.

 

[butlerguy03]

I, too, have always wondered why stations platoon songs. I prefer the larger gold libraries that rotate much slower. I guess I would like to always have 3 Doors Down "Kryptonite" than platoon it and have it in rotation only 6 or 9 months of the year. Obviously, seasonal songs are different and you can worry about that with sound codes,etc.

 

[davideduardo]

David, maybe you can help me explain what JbeJay described about resting groups of songs.

I know this is an extremely common practice in radio, but I've never understood WHY.

Except for a few specific cases, i don't understand it either.

The best way to rest a song is to make sure its horizontal and vertical rotations are ideal. That is, it plays in all other dayparts before returning to the one it just played in. And when it returns to that daypart, it plays in different hours each time. In this manner, the average listener will not hear a song overplayed.

The case for platooning songs is best made with artists that have too many songs. Country has lots of them, and a common practice is to have a few resting and a larger bunch playing. Let's say the station plays 30 Garth Brooks songs in gold, but rotations and separations require that there only be 18 in active rotation... so, every week, we have six songs go to rest and six return from rest. Any given song would simply skip two weeks every fourth week.

In this case of "high density" artists, the alternative is to packet the songs, where two songs occupy one "slot" on the category list, thus playing half as much. Or, using GSelector, songs by an artist are adjusted to play less than other songs in the category... which is the same thing. I'd rather cycle a few in and out than slow down all such songs, but either approach seems to work.

I know of many cases where PD's would rest songs when they were no longer currents and before they became recurrents. If the song was good enough to play, why would you stop playing it for a while? It's not like a good song needs a cooling off period... if the song is burning, slow it down, don't kill it.

If these songs are all previous hits, if these songs are all about equally popular, why wouldn't you dump them ALL into rotation at once and let it be an extremely slow rotating category of decent songs?

That is my belief. and that is why stations may have several levels of gold play, with lesser and lesser repeat frequency based on score and other factors. Key in this is deciding at what score level a song should not be played. Some libraries are too large because they have too many mediocre songs, and that makes the good ones, the ones people turn up the volume on, play less often.

Oh, and i am one of those people who still turns up the volume when Brown Eyed Girl comes on...

Wouldn't that create the same lack of burnout?

In gold based formats, burnout is generally not as much due to a song being played out as from the playing of songs that really should not play much, if at all.

Example (100% anecdotal). About the only music channel on XM I listen to is 60's on 6 because I programmed and played a lot of the tunes... but it seems like (perception) that every time I listen, there is Mary Hopkin and Those Were The Days. I liked the song in the 60's but don't much care for it today; when I hear it twice in a week, I begin detesting it. But, again, put Brown Eyed Girl on and up goes the volume.

It seems like rotating in and out small groups of songs almost guarantees that your P1s are going to burn on each group of songs before your more typical listener gets tired of them and you move them out to rest (and burn another set).

In all the cases of platooning I have seen, the use has been to play way, way, too many songs that are irrelevant and even repugnant. Just because a song was somewhere in Whitburn does not mean it can be played today.

It strikes me as ill-advised as a "trick" I've seen some stations do where they play their overnight songs again the next morning or visa-versa with the idea that it will be different audiences and allow you to rotate through all of your hits in the daytime slots... you better be sure you're not burning out P1s who are up late or up early!

Taking gold from 1 AM to 4 AM and playing it from 10 AM to 4 PM is usually a good practice, as the chance of hitting any of the same people is nil. Widening the window is not really a good idea.

I'm hoping you can shed some light on what has always seemed to me like counter-intuitive and self-destructive practices on the part of so, so many (and many GREAT) radio stations.

This is one of those areas where opinion is often varied. I'm in agreement with you on most of this, mostly because I think that if you feel a need to platoon, you probably have too many songs in the library.

 

[GeneSavage]

Thanks for your reply, David. Very interesting!

Perhaps I'm unusual, but I've actually heard stations play songs I really, really like, too close together.

The first time it's "Oh YEAH!"
The second time it's"oh, yeah!"
The third time it's "oh... yeah."
The fourth time it's "Oh!" *flips station* "Yeah..."

Now, I'm talking about hearing a favorite from 20+ years ago... so these are songs I heard over and over when they were fresh.

I agree with what you're saying about stiffs sticking out like a sore thumb. Also, though, I think a generally too-small library of even good songs can get you in trouble. A friend at work got all excited about a local "Bob", but about a week later he told me "I think I pretty much have their library memorized now... I switched."

That may be good for cume, but can't be good for TSL.

Speaking of that, I hear oldies stations are doing better in PPM markets... is TSL (which seemingly has been the red-headed stepchild of the industry for a couple of decades) making a comeback too, or is it still "all about the cume?"

Thanks again for your reply; I always learn a lot from you!

 

[jnorth]

Glad to see so much discussion on this, really learned a lot, this was exactly what I was getting at.. thank you!

 

[lost45]

>I prefer the larger gold libraries that rotate much slower.

There should always be a place on decade specific stations for the hits that listeners were forced fed...that they don't hear anymore. I was 11 when "Seasons in the Sun" came out. As I said in my book ("we Had Joy, We Had Fun"), the words seemed like pure poetry. Now that I am old, lol, I still love hearing that song.

It's a fact that most programmers are missing completely.

 

[davideduardo]

Speaking of that, I hear oldies stations are doing better in PPM markets... is TSL (which seemingly has been the red-headed stepchild of the industry for a couple of decades) making a comeback too, or is it still "all about the cume?"

Here's what I observe from the earliest days of the PPM tests in Philadelphia 9 years ago.

When oldies was moved to classic hits, its under-55 cume potential increased.

In the diary, stations that were not favorites often did not get written in. Favorite stations got credit for more listening than deserved.

In the PPM, classic hits stations are often the second or third choice for TSL, but the PPM picks up the listening and registers it. So what often did not get reported in the diary creates a different scenario in the PPM where classic hits stations amass huge cumes, and reasonably good TSL.

Since the TSL for all stations tends to be in the 2:45 to 3:45 weekly range, getting that phantom cume is very significant.

That, of course, means short listening spans by many more people. And that means paying more attention to P2 and P3 listeners than the P1s in most cases. The P1s will like a broader selection of songs, including those that are not appetizing to the p2 and p3 listeners who come for really big, favorite songs from a genre that is not their favorite music type. Thus the need to keep as far away from the novelty songs, the ones that are no longer relevant and the semi-hits.

It's been seen that about half of a station's P1's are loyalists, and the other half will be P1 for a while, then be P1 to another station and then to another as they cycle through varied preferences. The part of the P1 base that is transitory will also be less depth oriented and more hit oriented, too.

So, with TSL very compressed (and daily TSL is the base for PPM, not weekly) and incidents very short, you need to play the strongest songs possible every time someone might be tuning in or vulnerable to tuning out. "Billy Don't Be A Hero" is not a good idea...

 

[radiorob2.0]

The first time it's "Oh YEAH!"
The second time it's"oh, yeah!"
The third time it's "oh... yeah."
The fourth time it's "Oh!" *flips station* "Yeah..."

That is what those with the Economics degrees called "The Law of Marginal Utility".

 

[GeneSavage]

That is what those with the Economics degrees called "The Law of diminishing marginal utility".

I learned something today! Thank you. (I can't wait to say this to someone next time they complain about radio playing the same few current hits: "oh, that's just the Law of diminishing marginal utility at work...")

It'll sound better than my typical response, not suitable for reprint here. ;D

For those as uninformed as myself, here's the link that expanded my knowledge:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Law_of_diminishing_marginal_utility

There may be better explanations, but this did the trick for me. (What did we EVER do before the internet?)

 

[radiorob2.0]

That is what those with the Economics degrees called "The Law of diminishing marginal utility".

I learned something today! Thank you. (I can't wait to say this to someone next time they complain about radio playing the same few current hits: "oh, that's just the Law of diminishing marginal utility at work...")

It'll sound better than my typical response, not suitable for reprint here. ;D

For those as uninformed as myself, here's the link that expanded my knowledge:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Law_of_diminishing_marginal_utility

There may be better explanations, but this did the trick for me. (What did we EVER do before the internet?)

My Managerial Economics professor was a good kinda crazy, a brilliant man that plus he knew his stuff and one of the few professors I respected. He explained the theory this way:

After a long day you will crave a cold beer. That first beer will taste wonderful, then you'll decide to have another. The second beer taste good but not like the first sip of the first beer. Then you decide to have a third beer, it taste good but the craving has died down. If you keep drinking then you become, as he put it, snot-flying drunk while at the same time the satisfaction of the first beer no longer exist and chances are you'll throw up from taking in too much beer for you system.