Now Playing on K-Earth - Classic Rock! (Well, sorta...)

[michael hagerty]

What, somehow music radio would be better if it played songs more of its listeners have indicated they don't want to hear?

So does every song that peaked in the top 20 from 1968 to 1985 be available for the auditorium testees, every time there's a session? Because if only 10% (if that) of all these charted songs are being played, that leaves approx. 90% that were rejected by the auditorium and I find that extremely hard to believe, under that scenario.

If David wants to answer that in detail again, he can, but since.....what?....January?....he's done it at least three times.

 

[davideduardo]

So does every song that peaked in the top 20 from 1968 to 1985 be available for the auditorium testees, every time there's a session? Because if only 10% (if that) of all these charted songs are being played, that leaves approx. 90% that were rejected by the auditorium and I find that extremely hard to believe, under that scenario.

As I have explained before...

With rare exception... and those are grounded in special events like movies or the half-time at the Superbowl... songs do not get better with age.

If they test really badly, we don't waste time on testing them again unless the target of the station changes.

A 1968 song that tests badly will never be tested again, as we already know that to get a good sales demo, we can't go for the original fans of such songs as they are all in their 60's or above now.

A 1990 song that did not test a year or two ago may be retested over and over to see if the target, in its majority, has grown into that song and era.

Anything else: if it is borderline, we test again. If it is still below cutoff, it is not going to get better. If it is negative, and the younger end of the demos hate it, it will not be tested again.

We never really look at how a song charted. Charts only indicated sales "back then". In fact, it's more important to find what stations were playing, as "everyone" heard the radio and the songs they played... but few actually bought them.

Again, it is about how much your target audience wants to hear a song today. That goes for every format that plays music.

 

[Thomps2525]

David, you mention songs that "test really badly." That puts the blame on the songs instead of on the listeners. You used 1968 as an example. Jumpin' Jack Flash, Mrs. Robinson, Born To Be Wild, Hey Jude and Hello I Love You were huge hits that year and got a lot of airplay---deservedly so. If the majority of people who grew up in the 1980s-90s can't relate to those songs and have no interest in hearing them, we shouldn't declare that the songs test badly, thereby implying that they no longer are good songs; rather, we should just say that younger listeners prefer to hear more recent songs. And if that generalization is true, then why bother to test songs at all? Just play whatever songs your target audience grew up with.

 

[oldies76]

Just play whatever songs your target audience grew up with.

Nicely said!

 

[Thomps2525]

Does anyone know which radio station was the first to conduct "auditorium tests"? And don't these tests usually include just a 20- to 30-second snippet of each song? How reliable would those tests be? If people hear, for example, the first 20 seconds of Brown Eyed Girl, they might not say they're tired of the song, but force them to listen to the entire 2:53 of it and they'll probably all say, "Oh God, I'm sick of hearing that!"

 

[michael hagerty]

David, you mention songs that "test really badly." That puts the blame on the songs instead of on the listeners. You used 1968 as an example. Jumpin' Jack Flash, Mrs. Robinson, Born To Be Wild, Hey Jude and Hello I Love You were huge hits that year and got a lot of airplay---deservedly so. If the majority of people who grew up in the 1980s-90s can't relate to those songs and have no interest in hearing them, we shouldn't declare that the songs test badly, thereby implying that they no longer are good songs; rather, we should just say that younger listeners prefer to hear more recent songs. And if that generalization is true, then why bother to test songs at all? Just play whatever songs your target audience grew up with.

This close to taking the Lord's name in vain.....

Blame?

Really?

Steve, nobody's blaming the record and it'd be positively moronic to blame the listener.

All anyone is saying is that times change, tastes change and records fall out of favor over time. That's naturally more pronounced with people who never had a relationship with the record in the first place.

And that last....

(Deep breath)

Just like the generation before it, not every song that got play or charted during the 80s and 90s is still a song the 80s and 90s generation wants to hear now. You have to test.

But you have to know that.

Don't you? Or is the signature under your screen name not a joke?

 

[Thomps2525]

Can I plead the fifth here?

I agree 100% that times change and tastes change. I like the 1960s but I know there are hundreds of songs from that decade that no longer "test well." Does anyone still like hearing Honey or Ballad Of The Green Berets? And few fans of '70s music will still admit to liking You Light Up My Life or The Night Chicago Died. I'm guessing that 20 years from now the great majority of the 2000-2009 rap/hip-hop hits won't "test well" either.

As for people having a "relationship" with records---and I'm trying to guess at your exact meaning---wouldn't you say that such a phenomenon was fairly common in the 1950s-60s but almost non-existent in the past 20 years? People who like the 1960s music complain loud and long about the hundreds of songs that are now ignored by radio. Will people who grew up with 1990s-2000s music someday complain about radio ignoring hundreds of hits from those years? With all the alternative listening choices, maybe they won't even care.

 

[oldies76]

Does anyone still like hearing Honey or Ballad Of The Green Berets? And few fans of '70s music will still admit to liking You Light Up My Life or The Night Chicago Died. I'm guessing that 20 years from now the great majority of the 2000-2009 rap/hip-hop hits won't "test well" either.

I've brought this up a couple years ago, but have you ever seen those four cuts you mentioned above on You Tube? and the over-whelming approval (likes) these lost songs get and the comments given? Now get those viewers into an auditorium together and see your music test results.... ;D Granted, many people "liking" these songs already like them personally. But it goes to show you, these lost hits are still liked by many!

 

[michael hagerty]

Can I plead the fifth here?

I agree 100% that times change and tastes change. I like the 1960s but I know there are hundreds of songs from that decade that no longer "test well." Does anyone still like hearing Honey or Ballad Of The Green Berets? And few fans of '70s music will still admit to liking You Light Up My Life or The Night Chicago Died. I'm guessing that 20 years from now the great majority of the 2000-2009 rap/hip-hop hits won't "test well" either.

As for people having a "relationship" with records---and I'm trying to guess at your exact meaning---wouldn't you say that such a phenomenon was fairly common in the 1950s-60s but almost non-existent in the past 20 years? People who like the 1960s music complain loud and long about the hundreds of songs that are now ignored by radio. Will people who grew up with 1990s-2000s music someday complain about radio ignoring hundreds of hits from those years? With all the alternative listening choices, maybe they won't even care.

By relationship, I mean songs too old for the listener to remember when it was popular. We Boomers were exposed to hit records several times a day for two to four months. That's not the same as hearing a song from 10 years before you were born in a movie or TV commercial.

And you're probably right about alternative listening choices reducing complaints about songs not being played. It's the reason I don't. The future is here. Between my own music collection, Pandora and Spotify, if I want to hear something (with very few out-of-print exceptions), I can.

 

[michael hagerty]

Does anyone still like hearing Honey or Ballad Of The Green Berets? And few fans of '70s music will still admit to liking You Light Up My Life or The Night Chicago Died. I'm guessing that 20 years from now the great majority of the 2000-2009 rap/hip-hop hits won't "test well" either.

I've brought this up a couple years ago, but have you ever seen those four cuts you mentioned above on You Tube? and the over-whelming approval (likes) these lost songs get and the comments given? Now get those viewers into an auditorium together and see your music test results.... ;D Granted, many people "liking" these songs already like them personally. But it goes to show you, these lost hits are still liked by many!

But not enough to offset the negatives.

Anybody who clicks play on a YouTube video they hate is just wasting their own time. Excluding masochists, the overwhelming majority of clicks will be from people who like the song.

 

[davideduardo]

And if that generalization is true, then why bother to test songs at all? Just play whatever songs your target audience grew up with.

But that does not achieve good audience response. What was "popular" 20 or 30 or 40 years ago is not uniformly popular today. Some songs age well, others not so well and some become downright hateful.

 

[davideduardo]

Does anyone know which radio station was the first to conduct "auditorium tests"?

Callout began in the mid-70's. Jack McCoy at KCBQ and Todd Wallace at KRIZ were among the first in the Southwest to do it.

Auditorium testing began in the same era, but was... as all new techniques... a closely guarded secret. I'd assume that before the end of the 80's many stations were doing it in LA.

And don't these tests usually include just a 20- to 30-second snippet of each song? How reliable would those tests be?

No, they include about an 8 second snippet. When scored by a dial nearly everyone has finished scoring within about 5 seconds.

Here is the procedure in a little documentary photo album:

http://www.americanradiohistory.com/research_AMT.htm

If people hear, for example, the first 20 seconds of Brown Eyed Girl, they might not say they're tired of the song, but force them to listen to the entire 2:53 of it and they'll probably all say, "Oh God, I'm sick of hearing that!"

People know how they feel about a song within seconds... and they score instantly. In fact, if the hooks are longer, of course you test fewer songs but most important, people become fidgety and bored... but they don't change their scores after the first few seconds.

 

[Thomps2525]

I know there are a few songs such as Nadia's Theme and A Hard Day's Night that are recognizable by the very first note. But, in these auditorium tests, if people hear a song they don't recognize---and I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that a station would test a few songs that were not big hits---how would the listeners rate them? Does that dial have a position that says "Don't recognize"? And would the tester then play a longer portion of each song that isn't widely recognized? Or would the tester just arbitrarily decide that the station shouldn't play any song that isn't recognized by 100% of the people? If that is the case, that would explain why we get Happy Together, Light My Fire and Brown Eyed Girl ten times a day!

 

[ChannelFlipper]

And "quality" is, when it comes to music and radio, another subjective term. My tastes are wildly eclectic, and have almost never been satisfied for more than a few minutes at a shot by commercial radio. But I know that there aren't enough people like me to keep a radio station alive. And I'm fortunate enough to live in a time where I have a huge number of commercial stations, their virtually commercial-free and looser HD2 streams, satellite radio, my entire music collection (if I choose) in my pocket via iPhone, as well as Pandora, iHeart and Spotify. So I don't feel the need to insist that a business make a bad business decision just to satisfy me.

You and I are in complete agreement on this point. I understand the business side of radio very well, and if I owned a station (particularly in this day and age), I would research and tight-playlist the thing such as professionals like David and others recommend in order to maximize the profitability of the station. I would have to do so to ensure I can make that next highly leveraged debt payment that allows me to keep owning and broadcasting on the station. If the population I am broadcasting to and market dynamics dictated it, I would even program the station in another language if necessary.

Unfortunately, as a fan of radio, I detest all of those things that are done that I freely admit I would do myself if I was in charge. That said, the repetition, tight playlists and lack of risk-taking has made the entire dial dull and stale. And that is why you and I both get our respective fixes elsewhere. If you and I and many others start using other mediums, eventually it will erode the radio audience. Radio has to innovate to survive long-term. And innovation cannot come one researched and tested song after another. This is where the "fan angle" meets the "business angle" which is really the heart of many the discussions on this thread and others on this board.

By the way, each of my alternative sources are paid-for models. I am happy to pay for commercial free music - but it has to super-satisfy me in order to get my money. Now not only is the radio out, so is the ad-based model that supports it.

 

[Thomps2525]

Richard Wagoner's radio column appears each Friday in the Daily News and Daily Breeze. In yesterday's column, titled "The lack of competition makes for boring radio," Wagoner shared the comments of Lee Marshall, former KHJ/KABC newsman and current voice of Tony the Tiger. Marshall said that in the 1960s The Real Don Steele often had 40% of the afternoon audience and Steele had the attitude that he couldn't be beat; he wanted to crush the competition. Today, when a single company owns as many as seven stations in the same market, there is no reason for any one station to try to "crush the competition" because the competition is the sister stations of that station. Lack of competition = boring radio. There ya go!

 

[michael hagerty]

When KROQ went from AOR to New Wave did they do that because that's what their researched focus test groups told them? Or was it because they had great visionary programmers who saw the future and made it their own? If it was up to focus groups and research, great stations like KROQ (that have ridden the wave of that original vision for some thirty years) would have never occurred in the first place. It is now killing an entire genre of rock music, among others. Oh, but the masses want to hear it...

Riddle me this: Since PPM became a part of the radio landscape, what great stations have come along? They're absence is because no one is allowed to take a chance any more. As David and others have (correctly) said, each station is monitored minute by minute now, song by song, and there is no opportunity for chance taking, because no one is allowed to fail. Too much money riding on the investment so everyone must play it safe. Very safe. Researched-to-ensure-no-trip-ups safe.

If it is ratings you desire, we have no shortage of stations with good ratings (and no vision). If it is quality you desire, you might as well be stranded on an island.

Rick Carroll was a great, visionary programmer who as soon as he found his music mix, honed, refined and tightened it. KROQ under Rick was as disciplined and focused as KHJ or KKDJ...it just didn't sound like it because of the personality of the station and the type of music.

As for your "Since PPM" question...gotta define "great". It's a subjective term at best. What great stations came along in the 10 years immediately preceding PPM? How'd they do?

And "quality" is, when it comes to music and radio, another subjective term. My tastes are wildly eclectic, and have almost never been satisfied for more than a few minutes at a shot by commercial radio. But I know that there aren't enough people like me to keep a radio station alive. And I'm fortunate enough to live in a time where I have a huge number of commercial stations, their virtually commercial-free and looser HD2 streams, satellite radio, my entire music collection (if I choose) in my pocket via iPhone, as well as Pandora, iHeart and Spotify. So I don't feel the need to insist that a business make a bad business decision just to satisfy me.

>>>And "quality" is, when it comes to music and radio, another subjective term. My tastes are wildly eclectic, and have almost never been satisfied for more than a few minutes at a shot by commercial radio. But I know that there aren't enough people like me to keep a radio station alive. And I'm fortunate enough to live in a time where I have a huge number of commercial stations, their virtually commercial-free and looser HD2 streams, satellite radio, my entire music collection (if I choose) in my pocket via iPhone, as well as Pandora, iHeart and Spotify. So I don't feel the need to insist that a business make a bad business decision just to satisfy me.<<<

You and I are in complete agreement on this point. I understand the business side of radio very well, and if I owned a station (particularly in this day and age), I would research and tight-playlist the thing such as professionals like David and others recommend in order to maximize the profitability of the station. I would have to do so to ensure I can make that next highly leveraged debt payment that allows me to keep owning and broadcasting on the station. If the population I am broadcasting to and market dynamics dictated it, I would even program the station in another language if necessary.

Unfortunately, as a fan of radio, I detest all of those things that are done that I freely admit I would do myself if I was in charge. That said, the repetition, tight playlists and lack of risk-taking has made the entire dial dull and stale. And that is why you and I both get our respective fixes elsewhere. If you and I and many others start using other mediums, eventually it will erode the radio audience. Radio has to innovate to survive long-term. And innovation cannot come one researched and tested song after another. This is where the "fan angle" meets the "business angle" which is really the heart of many the discussions on this thread and others on this board.

By the way, each of my alternative sources are paid-for models. I am happy to pay for commercial free music - but it has to super-satisfy me in order to get my money. Now not only is the radio out, so is the ad-based model that supports it.

So we have much in common.

As for alternative sources, I've been doing that a long time...from an 8-track in the car in 1973, an 8-track recorder so I could make early mix tapes for the car in 1975 to cassettes in the early 80s and a mix of CDs, satellite radio, iPhone, HD radio, Pandora and Spotify today.

If I were going to have an impact, it'd have happened 40 years ago. But I listen to radio, too. In fact, I usually start with radio, then move onto alternative sources if/when I feel the need. Sometimes that's in 15 minutes, sometimes it's several days. Luck of the draw.

 

[michael hagerty]

Richard Wagoner's radio column appears each Friday in the Daily News and Daily Breeze. In yesterday's column, titled "The lack of competition makes for boring radio," Wagoner shared the comments of Lee Marshall, former KHJ/KABC newsman and current voice of Tony the Tiger. Marshall said that in the 1960s The Real Don Steele often had 40% of the afternoon audience and Steele had the attitude that he couldn't be beat; he wanted to crush the competition. Today, when a single company owns as many as seven stations in the same market, there is no reason for any one station to try to "crush the competition" because the competition is the sister stations of that station. Lack of competition = boring radio. There ya go!

Richard's a good guy and a radio fan. But he overlooks a couple of things.

The "crush the competition" mentality was always most pronounced in Top 40 (as he notes with his Real Don Steele reference.

Today's CHR? KIIS-FM (Clear Channel) vs. AMP (CBS) vs. Power 106 (Emmis).

AC? KOST (Clear Channel) vs. KTWV (CBS).

Alternative? KROQ (CBS) vs. KYSR (Clear Channel).

Classic Rock? KLOS (Cumulus) vs. KSWD (Bonneville).

The competition isn't sister stations.

So...there ya go!

 

[Thomps2525]

I'm always happy to be able to post comments of other people so Michael can get upset with someone besides me.

Wagoner elaborated on Marshall's comments by pointing out that "the same people who listen to KOST probably also tune in KBIG or even KYSR and KIIS." Those are all owned by Clear Channel and Wagoner explains that the ownership of several stations by one company is why they're now satisfied with each station getting a 3 or 4 or 5 share. If one station dominated with a 10-plus share, it would hurt the other stations.

 

[michael hagerty]

I'm always happy to be able to post comments of other people so Michael can get upset with someone besides me.

Wagoner elaborated on Marshall's comments by pointing out that "the same people who listen to KOST probably also tune in KBIG or even KYSR and KIIS." Those are all owned by Clear Channel and Wagoner explains that the ownership of several stations by one company is why they're now satisfied with each station getting a 3 or 4 or 5 share. If one station dominated with a 10-plus share, it would hurt the other stations.

And Lee Marshall's another good guy whom I've had the honor of corresponding with.

But, he misses the point here.

Even if you broke up the clusters and made it a 1 AM/1 FM per market world, you're not going to see much more than a 5 share very often. There are simply too many choices on the radio dial. KHJ fell from a 13 in 1968 to a 5 in 1973.

No popular music station did better than that until KIIS hit a 10 share in 1984. But what woukd that number have been if they hadn't been giving away a Porsche 944 with $25,000 in the glove box every Friday? And you know what everyone else in the market (except KABC) got? A 4 or less.

Damn near 30 years ago. When you could only own one AM and one FM per market.

I like Lee, and admire his work. But he's wrong.

 

[davideduardo]

Wagoner elaborated on Marshall's comments by pointing out that "the same people who listen to KOST probably also tune in KBIG or even KYSR and KIIS." Those are all owned by Clear Channel and Wagoner explains that the ownership of several stations by one company is why they're now satisfied with each station getting a 3 or 4 or 5 share. If one station dominated with a 10-plus share, it would hurt the other stations.

That's a misunderstanding of the Clear Channel concept of the "wall of women". and how competiton works.

Clear has 3 mainstream stations in KIIS, KBIG and KOST. One has an average age of 25, the next is about 34 and the next is around 42. Each overlaps demographically, and each may share with the next one in the progression. That is on purpose.

Clear has an Hispanic / Ethnic targeted station in KHHT. And it has a parallel play in KYSR. Both deliver audience that is not delivered by the pure mainstream pop -> AC progression. So what they have is a wall with three bricks at the bottom and two on the second tier, all well bonded and with no holes in them.

As to 10 shares... won't happen. Every time a station gets much beyond a 5 share in LA, it gets a competitor from another company... KIIS and AMP. KSCA and KBUE / KLAX. KLVE and the original KXOL in 2000.

Stations with a 3 share and some billing of significance do not go after a 5 share station... the result will be no better than what they have. Underperforming stations go after shares that are higher, that can be fragmented, and where even a 2nd place is a money maker.