Oldies format enjoy a heavy return to strong FM`s!!!!!!!!!!!!

[davideduardo]

How would a station playing mid-50's thru early-80's popular music be catagorized, if at all? I'm thinking that it would fall into "the greatest music of your life" but that is commonly defined as Standards/Big Band/Swing, isn't it?

Standards is the definition for 50's and 40's Patti Page - Glenn Miller stuff. More than that and the catchall is Variety.

And, what chance does a non-conforming playlist such as the above have against a "pure" Arbitron-defined catagory? Seems like this station would always be down in the dumps ratings wise.

The format names are put in the tabulated finished reports to help time buyers. The listener does not have lists to pick from, nor do they vote for favorite types of music. In the diary the listener fills in blanks with the station or its name or dial position and how long they listen. In the PPM, the listener just carries a little device with them that knows what they listen to.

The internal format names do not affect the outcome of ratings, They just make the ad buyer's life a little simpler

 

[davideduardo]

Now, you all should know better than to try to make a point here. The enthusiasm for WYAY is great. Let me remind those who don't know how to market to anyone over 45, that the station's alleged lack of full city grade coverage of Fulton County means total defeat, and the station should shut down, and target 18-24 year-olds who no longer care about radio. The consultants have seen to telling us how much that demo is the holy Grail, while chasing them all away and making our industry irrelevant to an entire grnreration.

None of that is true. And as long as a station has decent numbers somewhere inside 18 to 54, they will do well. But if most of the numbers are in 55+, it won't have a chance in a big market.

Look at the failure of Philly's #2 WOGL...it only covers 3 of it's metro counties with city grade signal completely, the other 5 counties get only partial coverage...such a loser, only rated #2.

WOGL is not an oldies station, it is classic hits. And the useful signal covers 93% of the MSA population. However, it's 25-54 rank is much lower than #1.

I guess the mighty Wibbage, WIBG 99 was a rimshot as well, as its' towers were in Lafayette Hills, PA, not Philly.May WYAY kick ass and take neames as well as WOGL! Prove these gassbag oafs wrong.

Wibbage could never win because it is highly directional, and did not even cover the full market day and night in the 60's. (I know Wibbage well... the dog I had at age 12 or 13 was named Wibbage.)

Same for WIP 610 (NJ), WCAU (WPHT) 1210(NJ), WFIL 560, WPEN 950. Is WEMG 1310 a Philly rimshot too? It's tower is 500 yards across the Delaware River in Camden. VERY poor arguement with 100kw that's 15 miles from Atlanta.

You apparently do not know what a rimshot is. It's a station licensed totally outside the market MSA trying to put a signal into it by proximity. None of the stations you mention are outside the metro... all but the Camden station are licensed to Philadelphia.

May WYAY kick ass and take neames as well as WOGL! Prove these gassbag oafs wrong.

Unless it goes classic hits, it won't prove anything.

 

[Goodtimesandgreatoldies]

WYAY-FM True Oldies 106.7 is doing GREAT with the Good Times and Great Oldies of the 1950`s- early 1970`s. Thank God that most Atlanta folks are alot mor eopen-minded than this David Eurondo (he doesn`t seem to be from around here). Even young kids love True Oldies 106.7-WYAY. They have a 100,000 watt Oldies blowtorch and they are the FASTEST GROWING FM Oldies station in Metro Atlanta! They are HOTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[amfmsw]

Dave, anyone who names his dog Wibbage can't be all bad.

First, WYAY, look at that massive signal, that is not what I would classify as a rimshot. It clearly does an excellent job of coverage.

WOGL format has nothing to do with this conversation. We're talking coverage. I picked it out of the blue. And it still only cover 3 of 8 metro counties completely with a city grade signal. If you want to argue that that the secondary gives WOGL 93% coverage, than WYAY is 100%.

Closing, WIBG WAS a winner for years, and you know the legendary ratings it pulled from 1956-1967, directional antenna or not. Although it made inroads, WFIL did not begin to win the ratings war until '68..two years into the format.

And your assertion that there is no money or success for any station that has a large 55-64 audience is just plian hot air, my friend. That is NOT true nationwide, only in some consultant's mind bubble. I'm still waiting for your sources and how old the info is on what the agencies based their decision that PROVES 55-64 are poor ROI, don't change brands, don't investigate new technology, embrace new brands or change shopping/brand/buying habits. The Boomer generation rewrote the book on that stuffy old nonsense.

 

[davideduardo]

First, WYAY, look at that massive signal, that is not what I would classify as a rimshot. It clearly does an excellent job of coverage.

It's a rimshot by all definitions. The transmitter is located so it can still put a signal over the COL, so the 64 dbu, which is where about 95% of at home and at work listening happens, just barely hits downtown Atlanta. It totally misses about 40% of the market.

WOGL format has nothing to do with this conversation. We're talking coverage. I picked it out of the blue. And it still only cover 3 of 8 metro counties completely with a city grade signal. If you want to argue that that the secondary gives WOGL 93% coverage, than WYAY is 100%.

The 64 dbu on WOGL covers 93% of the population. WYAY 64's about 55% of the Atlanta population.

Closing, WIBG WAS a winner for years, and you know the legendary ratings it pulled from 1956-1967, directional antenna or not. Although it made inroads, WFIL did not begin to win the ratings war until '68..two years into the format.

Wibbage lost due to coverage. Pulse and Hooper only surveyed the central city areas, and when Arbitron came as they rolled out in the late 60's, WIBG died from its horrible signal; Storer annual reports mentioned the problems, too.

And your assertion that there is no money or success for any station that has a large 55-64 audience is just plian hot air, my friend. That is NOT true nationwide, only in some consultant's mind bubble. I'm still waiting for your sources and how old the info is on what the agencies based their decision that PROVES 55-64 are poor ROI, don't change brands, don't investigate new technology, embrace new brands or change shopping/brand/buying habits. The Boomer generation rewrote the book on that stuffy old nonsense.

Stations with lots of 55+ sell on the under-55 part of the audience. Those that can't, from WCCO to KMOX to WDUV, are losing revenue horribly. There essentially are no 55+ buys.

The data used by advertisers, not the agencies, comes from internal marketing department studies. All the radio medium knows is that the clients have given demographic targets that do not include 55+. P&G is not going to reveal its marketing research any more than a station is going to publish its latest AMT or perceptual. The fact that there are essentially no agency 55+ buys is proof enough.

Oh, and the big national advertisers are doing new research several times a year. It's current, and it includes boomers.

 

[davideduardo]

WYAY-FM True Oldies 106.7 is doing GREAT with the Good Times and Great Oldies of the 1950`s- early 1970`s. Thank God that most Atlanta folks are alot mor eopen-minded than this David Eurondo (he doesn`t seem to be from around here). Even young kids love True Oldies 106.7-WYAY. They have a 100,000 watt Oldies blowtorch and they are the FASTEST GROWING FM Oldies station in Metro Atlanta! They are HOTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whatever.

The point is that the ratings still do not show any impact, although we can see again when the Spring book comes out....

The station is currently not in the top 20 12+ and not top 25 25-54.

It's not billing because it has no numbers.

So to say it is doing well is either premature or exaggeration. Maybe both.

 

[KFodor]

OK, David, I'll try to help you out here...

You can love the 50's/60's format all you want. But, what David is saying (and I know having to have to deal with losing 50 cents on a dollar with a #1 ranked oldies station once), is absolutely right.

True Oldies could rocket to #1 in the Atlanta market. But, if the majority of listeners are over age 55, they won't be on the air long. Advertisers are abandoning that demo in droves today. (Maybe they can make some change in direct sales, but even that is iffy...)

Sure, you can find a 12 year old here and there that likes the Beatles. Many do. But, statistically, they are a cypher in the ratings of every oldies station I've ever seen. And stations live and die, by Arbitron.

Think the ad agencies think boomers are great for radio? Call a few and ask the ad buyers directly. They use means other than radio to reach 55 plusers and that's why the original oldies format is dying.

And, to have the coverage you say WYAY has...and to still be around #20 in the market doesn't indicate a healthy station. But, I'm gonna be fair here and say let's see what the next book or two shows.

Fastest Growing FM Oldies Station in Metro Atlanta? It's easy to make that claim when you're the only one doing the format...

BTW: I love that music. Been an oldies jock on again, off again for years. I probably know the music better than some of you. (My personal oldies collection is in the tens of thousands of songs)

But, David knows, as I do...the true definition of "fan". We can't change your thinking. All we can do is point out common sense, then point out "we told you so" should and when it falls apart.

I wish Scott Shannon success with his format. He is a pro. But, I fear he may be tapping into a market that cannot be sold. You can only run your head into that brick wall so many times before you figure out...it hurts.

 

[firepoint525]

I just checked the True Oldies Channel`s website at www.trueoldieschannel.com. They state on the website that they play NO 1980`s and stop with most 70`s songs at 1974. They also say that they have a huge Oldies library of over 5,000 played in no particular order. This is what makes them special. Check out the website for yourself!

I don't know how they can say that they play NO '80s songs, when I can look at their playlist, and see that they've played "Uptown Girl" by Billy Joel, "Maneater" by Hall & Oates, and "Down Under" from Men at Work.

The problem with most "oldies" stations is that they got frozen in a 1960s time-warp. I don't care what anyone says, music from the early 1980s is now 25 years old, and should be considered oldies, because that is what they are! Those 1980s oldies are now older than the "oldies" that I listened to growing up! If oldies stations had progressed with their audience, and introduced those "newer" oldies to their listeners, they'd still be rockin' today!

Here in Nashville, the last oldies station here was finally beginning to get that message. They started playing late 1970s artists like Peter Frampton! Good job! But then they threw all that away, and went "classic hits" on us! : They were playing music from my generation (1975-1985 or so), but they shredded their playlist down to just the same handful of songs that any similar station would be playing! The problem with the "classic hits" format is that it leaves the listener wanting more. Okay, so you play "Rock This Town" by the Stray Cats. How about also playing "Sexy and 17" by them every once in a while? If you're going to play to my generation, then you must play MY generation's music! That means ALL of it, not the just the handful of songs you feel like playing! : The "classic hits" station lasted maybe a year or so with that format (and its narrow, tightly controlled playlist) before finally admitting that they failed, and changing formats (again!). This certainly flies in the face of everything David always says about tightly controlled playlists, and playing the same dozen songs over and over and over again! It didn't work in Nashville! :

So play the oldies, but don't center the playlist on the 1960s. The main focus of an oldies station now should be around 1975, with a roughly equal amount of the playlist coming from either side of 1975.

 

[KOOL Listener Lauren]

The problem with most "oldies" stations is that they got frozen in a 1960s time-warp. I don't care what anyone says, music from the early 1980s is now 25 years old, and should be considered oldies, because that is what they are! Those 1980s oldies are now older than the "oldies" that I listened to growing up! If oldies stations had progressed with their audience, and introduced those "newer" oldies to their listeners, they'd still be rockin' today!

I would hope to not hear any 80's on an oldies formatted station! Unfortunately, some already are.

The "oldies" format should be playing music based on designated decades, not based on how old a song is at the current time. Once I get a part-time radio job on an oldies/classic hits format, I'd better not have to be playing Maroon 5, 20-something years from now.

 

[Whiplash]

Thanks firepoint for verifying what I said about the 80's titles on the True Oldies Channel. I heard "Jack and Diane" again today.

 

[TheFonz]

The "oldies" format should be playing music based on designated decades, not based on how old a song is at the current time.

Great point. Take a lesson from XM satellite radio. They've been doing that for years.

 

[KOOL Listener Lauren]

The "oldies" format should be playing music based on designated decades, not based on how old a song is at the current time.

Great point. Take a lesson from XM satellite radio. They've been doing that for years.

Now that you bring up XM satellite radio, I think my previous post could be misunderstood.

I don't mean oldies formats having "designated decades" as in, a 50's station, 60's station, or 70's station. From my understanding, that's what XM does.

The terrestrial radio "oldies" format should always be playing 50's, 60's and 70's (50's questionable in many markets). Those three decades designated only.

25 years from now, the hits of today are going to have to find another place or another format would have to be created.

 

[firepoint525]

The problem with most "oldies" stations is that they got frozen in a 1960s time-warp. I don't care what anyone says, music from the early 1980s is now 25 years old, and should be considered oldies, because that is what they are! Those 1980s oldies are now older than the "oldies" that I listened to growing up! If oldies stations had progressed with their audience, and introduced those "newer" oldies to their listeners, they'd still be rockin' today!

I would hope to not hear any 80's on an oldies formatted station! Unfortunately, some already are.

The "oldies" format should be playing music based on designated decades, not based on how old a song is at the current time. Once I get a part-time radio job on an oldies/classic hits format, I'd better not have to be playing Maroon 5, 20-something years from now.

Being stuck in a frozen time warp is what killed oldies radio. The format "breathed" for many years, adding and dropping songs for years as necessary, until they developed this love affair with the '60s. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Beatles fan, and I have also picked up Elvis music in recent years because I can no longer hear it on the radio. But if radio remains stuck on a decade which is rapidly fading further and further into the past, then that will be the death knell for that format.

I've waited many years for my generation's music to get back on the air, and now that it has, I don't want anyone to try to tell me that it is not "oldies," because it is!

If a format wants to play hits from designated decades, then they should do that, and not call themselves "oldies." : I'm cringing, myself, at the thought of '90s music already becoming "retro." But I knew it would happen. I agree with you about Maroon5. I would just as soon never hear "This Love" again! : And I tune out every time I hear its intro.

But you won't have to worry about playing Maroon5 twenty years from now for two reasons: they won't stand the test of time, and no radio station will hire you anyway because they will all be voice-tracked by then.

Here's an oldies station I listen to in the Nashville area, and they play plenty of '70s and '80s now:

http://www.classichitsradioonline.com

And, yes, it's voice-tracked. :

 

[KOOL Listener Lauren]

Being stuck in a frozen time warp is what killed oldies radio. The format "breathed" for many years, adding and dropping songs for years as necessary, until they developed this love affair with the '60s. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Beatles fan, and I have also picked up Elvis music in recent years because I can no longer hear it on the radio. But if radio remains stuck on a decade which is rapidly fading further and further into the past, then that will be the death knell for that format.

I suppose it's all according to your point-of-view, but it doesn't necessarily have to be thought of as a "frozen time warp". What a bummer that sounds like!

To me, being stuck in a "time warp" sounds like hearing the same songs daily in just a different order. In your case, these would be 60's songs. I've heard oldies stations like that, and it just plain sucks, knowing that there could be so much more!

The 60's, and don't forget the 70's, were great and diverse decades for music. I believe that that diversity can be utilized in the station's advantage as far as programming goes, and can save the "oldies" format if and when it is needed. Years from now, there will still be a couple handfuls, at least, of what I'd consider timeless 60's classics. There will be even more for the 70's. And this is targeting 25 to 54.

I'll admit that in the future, I would add in some early 80's (like Hall & Oates and Steely Dan) to help the ratings.

Those born in the eighties, nineties, and sooner don't and won't be born with some left brain defect that will prevent them from hearing and enjoying, what is to them, as new music that truly is old.

I'm thinking into the future here. I don't know how many of you hang around high schools or colleges, but being almost at the age of 19 now, I probably have better information than any study could have figured out. Many of you would be surprised at just how many "oldies" songs people in their teens and twenties know. These songs are "pretty cool", "catchy", "awesome", etc., though they are unaware of just how old the song is or couldn't tell you who the band or artist. Get this: they're willing to hear more.

They will be the future 25 to 54 demographic, and it can regain popularity in this wide demographic once again.

Just my glass-half-full thoughts... Thanks for replying, firepoint!

 

[landtuna]

And to add a bit of personal experience to Lauren's last comment......

I have two late-teen daughters who were raised in a foreign country. They heard 'American" music from time to time but weren't inundated with it.

It is very interesting to me that they both become excited when they watch a movie (think Forrest Gump) that is loaded with what I would call Oldies. Or they watch a TV commercial which has an Oldies RnR classic as the background. It almost always stirs up lots of conversation about the music and why it is the way it was. For instance, neither knew much about the Vietnam War or 'protest rock" until they watched that movie and began to equate the music with the scenes of war. That morphed into a whole history lesson on the war and the music it spawned. Much the same thing happened during WWII and even WWI to a much lesser extent. Music is tied to events that might be high school, a war or some other notable experience. That's part of what keeps it popular and relevant no matter how old it is chronologically. Whether it has the popularity for mass consumption for radio broadcasters is a whole other discussion.

I can't begin to tell you how many custom CD's I've cut for these girls so they can listen to "dad's Oldies" (which they think are their "Newies"). True, they don't get too excited at listening to early Be-Bop like Rick Nelson - until they see a photo of him from '58. Then the appreciation begins.

Quality music never really dies. That's why we still hear Mozart from 200 years ago, or Big Band/Swing/Jazz from 70 years ago. Putting music into time categories is probably the worst type casting radio consultants do.

 

[davideduardo]

Quality music never really dies. That's why we still hear Mozart from 200 years ago, or Big Band/Swing/Jazz from 70 years ago. Putting music into time categories is probably the worst type casting radio consultants do.

Untrue. Listeners put music into categories, often based on age, but sometimes based on mood or other categories.

And consultants don't classify music, decide on music or veto music. Listeners do.

A format is based on a premise, such as tempo (think "soft AC" as an example). Listeners who like the core sound and maybe some core artists listen to hundreds up to maybe 1500 songs and tell us which ones they want to hear and how much they like them. And then the ones that belong on the station (determined by factor analysis to get clustering) are played.

Listeners often if not nearly always want one concept from a station, not many things on one staiton. In perceputal interviews, they basically say, "if I want rock, I know where to get it. If I want oldies, I also know where. But don't mix them, because when I am in the mood to rock, I don't want oldies."

When you hear this kind of thing over and over, with seldom a differing point of view, you understand consensus opinions and run with them. There will always be anecdotal anomalies (my personal "oldies" are from artists like Formula Quinta and Juna & Junior and Juan Erasmo Mochi) but anecotes can not be programmed to.

 

[landtuna]

David,

I'm not suggesting a station program Guns & Roses followed by Herbie Hancock but rather, within the station's normal genre, it is possible for wide airplay range and some experimentation. With tens of thousands of well known rock songs since the early 60's there is an opportunity to throw in something not frequently heard and surprise the listener with a magical new experience. I, personally, wouldn't mind hearing the occasional Freddy Cannon thumper or Cat Stevens passage tossed into the normal, repetitive Rolling Stones carnage. Of course, I'm in that 55+ demo so nobody pays attention to me, right? After all, where it is written that "Blueberry Hill" can't be played next to "Lady In Red"? That's exactly how my MP3's are set up. Can't hear 'em on the radio so I roll my own.

I think it is that type of thing, in addition to not having true old-time local "personalities" on-air which is crippling music radio today. And when radio begins playing my favorites again I may start listening.....again.

 

[davideduardo]

With tens of thousands of well known rock songs since the early 60's there is an opportunity to throw in something not frequently heard and surprise the listener with a magical new experience.

Keep in mind that the music you hear on any metro area music FM is likely reserched locally, and the songs that are "too negative" are eliminated.

As we move to having all the top 50 markets under PPM in the next two years, radio will be even more aware that a single mistake will drive listeners away, and they do not come back until the other station makes a mistake. So playing "oh wow" songs is likely to decrease as they are so, so dangerous.

I, personally, wouldn't mind hearing the occasional Freddy Cannon thumper or Cat Stevens passage tossed into the normal, repetitive Rolling Stones carnage.

But what is 70% of the listeners hate Freddy Cannon? The station, with research in hand, is not going to do that as very few will like the playing of Cannon, and many can easily go away.

Of course, I'm in that 55+ demo so nobody pays attention to me, right? After all, where it is written that "Blueberry Hill" can't be played next to "Lady In Red"? That's exactly how my MP3's are set up. Can't hear 'em on the radio so I roll my own.

Since radio can not afford to specifically please you except as a fringe listener to a more under-55 format, there is no way that a song by Fats Domino will be played since one has to be at least in their 60's to have much fondness for it.

I think it is that type of thing, in addition to not having true old-time local "personalities" on-air which is crippling music radio today. And when radio begins playing my favorites again I may start listening.....again.

When advertisers start seeking 55+ (and the trend is just the opposite) then radio will come after your with format offerings. Until then, just answer the question, "Who is going to pay for it?" and you will know why satellite and MP3 players are your best solution.

 

[amfmsw]

Well mr.tuna, you and I have officially been told to buzz off and stop listening. We have nothing to offer to local retailers and car dealers. We are washed up old toads. DE asserts Our money isn't green enough. It's just that simple.

 

[scooty430]

The recent WCBS A to Z event is, I think, an example of the most exciting way to move forward with oldies.

In case you missed this, they played just about every big hit (and many nifty surprises) from 1955 to 1989, in alpha order. It was around 2500 songs and took a week and a half, 24/7. It was pretty obvious from all the phone calls to the station that it struck a chord.

Their normal format isn't quite as ambitious, and is more 70s based, but it does cover the same time frame. 50s are "allowed."

Maintaining the old and adding on the new in this way is a much better approach than trying to slowly "move up." The latter approach will eventually mean an 80s/90s or 90s/00s oldies station. That music isn't good enough to sustain a format (and I'm in my 30s, so this isn't Mr. Old Fart talking.)