'Non-Current' Radio Programming

[Dick Skinner]

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.

This is easy, David. When a song's burn scores start converting to don't likes, it's time to give it a rest.

Also, when I increase or decrease an artist's exposure with GSelector, do I not conversely decrease or increase every other artist in the category? That whole idea seems ill-conceived to me.

 

[davideduardo]

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.

This is easy, David. When a song's burn scores start converting to don't likes, it's time to give it a rest.

Also, when I increase or decrease an artist's exposure with GSelector, do I not conversely decrease or increase every other artist in the category? That whole idea seems ill-conceived to me.

Simple... move the song into a lower rotation category.

To me, this is not an issue of just burn. The objective is to play songs listeners want to hear. Burn is just one of the reasons not to play a song. Decreasing passion (Love) scores, high neutral scores and "never liked it" are also issues.

Burn generally means that a song is playing too often, not that it should not be played (exception would be novelty songs, but a PD is supposed to know the difference). And burn is generally only identifiable via some form of frequent listener feedback where burn can be tracked.

Suspending a song because it is a little crispy seems illogical. Slow it down, since the negatives may be the result of high rotations, and I've seen quite a lot of cases of powers getting negatives, slowed them down, and finding that they snap right back to high scores with no burn just by slowing them down a bit.

 

[Dick Skinner]

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.

This is easy, David. When a song's burn scores start converting to don't likes, it's time to give it a rest.

Also, when I increase or decrease an artist's exposure with GSelector, do I not conversely decrease or increase every other artist in the category? That whole idea seems ill-conceived to me.

Simple... move the song into a lower rotation category.

To me, this is not an issue of just burn. The objective is to play songs listeners want to hear. Burn is just one of the reasons not to play a song. Decreasing passion (Love) scores, high neutral scores and "never liked it" are also issues.

Burn generally means that a song is playing too often, not that it should not be played (exception would be novelty songs, but a PD is supposed to know the difference). And burn is generally only identifiable via some form of frequent listener feedback where burn can be tracked.

Suspending a song because it is a little crispy seems illogical. Slow it down, since the negatives may be the result of high rotations, and I've seen quite a lot of cases of powers getting negatives, slowed them down, and finding that they snap right back to high scores with no burn just by slowing them down a bit.

I know what burn is. And there's often a point in a song's cycle where listeners can become so tired of it that they don't want to hear it at all. It's not just "a little crispy"; they're sick of hearing it. This is reflected in a sizable increase in the percentage of "don't like" scores.

Why would I want a song on the air that my listeners are telling me they don't want to hear? Playing it less only means there are fewer tune out occasions. Resting the song and continuing to test it can give the programmer a cue as to when it's ready for play again as a recurrent.

If I'm spending all this dough to isolate, recruit and survey my listener sample, I prefer not to second guess what they're telling me. That's just the way I do it anyway.

 

[GeneSavage]

And there's often a point in a song's cycle where listeners can become so tired of it that they don't want to hear it at all. It's not just "a little crispy"; they're sick of hearing it. This is reflected in a sizable increase in the percentage of "don't like" scores.

Then you were ALREADY playing those songs too often... by the time you get this kind of feedback, you're already REALLY annoying your listeners... research tells you how people felt YESTERDAY. By the time you make the changes on NEXT WEEK'S playlist, they're ready to throw the radio through the windows!

Years ago I had a friend suggest hot rotations for NEW songs, then slow it down as it approaches #1. Why? Longer time 'til burnout = always a large collection of familiar "love" songs rotating.

Also, for every burnt-to-a-crisp listener I can find for a particular song, I bet I can find someone who's just discovered it... sad, but true... some people really DO live under a rock, and while you've been playing it every 90 minutes for 3 months, they somehow managed to miss EVERY playing until yesterday afternoon at 3:15.

Why not slow it down earlier to ride it as long as possible, and pull it back when it starts to get a little crispy so those just catching on can still hear it?

I know "this is the way we've always done it," but I'm not convinced the way we done it has always been right! Otherwise, how have we lost audience share to pre-recorded media? (I know, that's another battle for another day...)

 

[Mac Black]

I believe that...heavy rotation for new songs, slow it down once it hits the top. Most songs take a while to reach #1 & by the time it hits the top, the listeners are usually tired of it & it's time to give it a 'rest' for a while. You're not catering to those people who haven't heard a song played every 90 minutes for 3 months bc obviously they haven't listened to your station in 3 months..so who cares? You're catering to those people who listen on a daily or frequent basis. If they miss it,they miss it. I'm a strong believer in slower moving rotations, u would rather leave the listener wanting more than beat them to death with it. I don't care how well a song 'tests', if u play it too often people will get tired of it & will change the station.

 

[jnorth]

I agree with the playing new songs more often, but would like to know your opinions if someone were to say by playing the new songs that much there are now more opportunities where listeners tune into your station and it's playing something unfamiliar so they leave.

I suppose they'll be even more unfamiliar the less you play them.

 

[adam502002]

I agree with the playing new songs more often, but would like to know your opinions if someone were to say by playing the new songs that much there are now more opportunities where listeners tune into your station and it's playing something unfamiliar so they leave.

I suppose they'll be even more unfamiliar the less you play them.

I'm with you here. Someone at our station tends to slip in so many BRAND new songs...way too much unfamiliar content. You have to have songs that play enough (not just on your station, but others too), BUT that don't play too much -- burn. It's hard to find the right balance...and keep it.