Re: Library misconceptions... and then some.
>
> I have been hearing this "corporate radio" stuff for decades
> and I still have no idea what it means.
Perhaps this is because you yourself are part of the corporate
problem?
>
> Aside form the fact that nearly every station in the US
> since the 40's has been owned by a corporation, I presume
> you mean "large corporations with many stations (that only
> want to make money)."
That is a close definition but lets also add where there is too
much micro-managing from the corporate offices.
>
> In fact, the pressure to make money was much higher in the
> 50's, 60's and 70's since stations had a hard time getting
> financing as they were not big enough to make most banks
> interested. So the owners paid higher interest on loans, and
> had few other markets to fall back on. A ratings defeat in
> one market could ruin a small group then.
yes it could but you also had more local control so that it
was easy for stations to be more responsive to listeners and
improve their ratings.
>
> In any case, the objective of any station, irrespective of
> the owners, is to attract listeners. The more listeners, the
> higher the ad rates. If playing 2,000 songs would get more
> listeners, we would all have megalibraries.
if you'd quit listening so much to the consultants you would
have larger playlists and higher ad rates. listen to your
local people more. I had to explain this to my boss who is
from NY whereas I am a native Ohio boy.
> I have posted several times about my own experiences. I once
> thought I could beat a tight list pop AC with a longer
> list... more than three times as long. Every song had been
> played in the market. I got beaten by about 4 to 1 by the
> tight listed station. My execution was better, my jocks were
> better. But the listeners did not like the fact I was
> playing about 60% weak songs.
I have seen your posts and even your web page and my comment
is the same as the one I made to OldiesCat. If you've been
in this business so long and done so much, when are you going
to get it right? The professionals just keep losing listeners.
>
> Later, in the same market of about 4 million, I took on a
> station that was just barely in the top 10. They played over
> 70 currents, and 1200 oldies. I cut the currents to around
> 20 and the gold to around 400, using a home grown music
> test. The station popped to #1 in one book, and has stayed
> #1 for 19 1/2 years under my stewardship.
>
> In another case, I did a sign on in a market of about 17
> million. Over 60 stations in competition. Tight list of 450
> pop rock songs covering roughly 1970 to present. First book:
> #1. Competitor came with about 1,800 songs in library and
> bragging about variety and dissing us. 8 books later, they
> had never gotten above a 1.8 while we continued to have
> shares in the 16 range. Eventually, they switched format.
and which stations are these?
>
> Less is better. The exact number of songs is determined by
> the listener. If 600 are positive with limited negatives and
> burn, play 600. I have one station with nearly 800 songs,
> all in regular rotation. This is because all 800 are
> positive to all listeners. In some formats, you can't fine
> 125 songs that are not full of negatives. All depends on the
> music appeal to the listening target.
less is better in your opinion. But as a listener I disagree.
As I've said before I dont even turn the radio on in the car
anymore for music, at all. WMJI and others have turned me off
so badly I dont want to hear any of it. When/If I get XM/Sirius
the music will come back on. I'll listen to Cousin Brucie and
Norm N. Nite and enjoy radio again.
In the oldies format (which is what we are discussing) there
are literally a couple thousand songs that are "strong".
Should I go through the Pop Annual and start counting?
>
> > The so called
> > "Professionals" have done nothing but screw up radio so
> that
> >
> > it sucks today and people dont want to listen.
>
> This is the comment that comes up nearly every day here. If
> this were true, how is it that radio reaches between 94% and
> 95% of all 12+ Americans weekly, the same as it has for the
> last 4 decades?
Hmm if it comes up every week did you stop to think it might
be correct? As for radio reaching 94 to 95% of the 12+, that
is now. watch what happens though. I think you will see that
number start going sown as more ane more people switch to
other forms of entertainment like Ipods/MP3 players and
Siruis/XM and internet.
>
> Even the PUR (Persons using radio rating) is at the same
> level it was at in the 70's. Interestingly, it moved higher
> in part of the 80's, then settled back to the 60's and 70's
> level starting int he late 90's. So, it may be off compared
> with 1987 (the peak) but it is the same as it was 30 years
> ago before original cable programming, iPods, satellite, the
> Internet, Pac Man and Doom, etc.
>
See above and just watch.
> There is fragmentation because there are more viable
> stations.
>
> Example. In the early 60's, there were only 7 viable
> stations in Cleveland, OH... then a top 15 market. All were
> AMs, and 4 were in the same format, Top 40. Today, there are
> more than 3 times the viable signals, as FMs became useful
> and the market fragged. Before, #1 meant a 24 share. Today,
> a 6 is a big share.
>
> In many markets, changes in rules and Docket 80-90 have
> multiplied even more the number of competing stations. There
> is one Arbitron market in the US that has had 77 stations
> make the book. Of course there is fragmentation.
This is part of it but also people keep hunting for something
they like. I tried that. WMJI sucks so I hunted the dial for
something I liked. I didn't find anything but talk radio.
thats why the shares are so low.
> Why? There are still 100 shares, and still as many listeners
> (as a percentage, of course). What is funny about that?
Well besides knowing that they are not all that accurate and
the suits live and die by them, I enjoy seeing what happens.
WMJI for example (again) fell to third place. I believe its
cause they moved up in years in their play list leaving a
big group of listeners out in the cold. Of course I also
think they should shut the morning team up and play music.
>
> > Just watch as XM and Sirius grow.
>
> Yeah, if they double the subscribers, they will probably be
> able to get about a 0.5 share of listening... divided among
> over 150 channels. Now, there is the fragmentation you are
> talking about.
Yes it is very fragmented. But in this case it serves listenrs
more than regular radio. I have 3 channels I can think of
right off the top of my head that I can listen to, 5O's 60's
and 70's. now if Rollye James had joined Sirius instead of XM
it would be easy for me to choose.
> In reality, as one who has tried both, the opposite is true.
> Fortunately, most programmers learn from their mistakes and
> do not try the same stupid thing twice. I sure will not. I
> really prefer talking to the listeners and finding out what
> they really want to hear.
If you do Listen the I'd say you're better than 99% of everyone
else in corporate radio today and I say congratulations and
good luck.
Mike Dane
WSTB-FM 88.9
WWW. SundayOlsiesJukebox.com
