Paragon Research-Adult Hits

[OldiesCat]

Jack

None of us knows how long Jack will last or what it may look/sound like in the next few years, of course.

Funny- I remember in the mid '80s when Oldies stations first came on, the general feeling by radio folk was "who the hell wants to hear a station that only bunch of songs that are 20-30 years old-- no currents, no recurrents. What a joke!". They were wrong.

> Good post. I'll agree. How long remains to be seen.
>
> > This noble quest that seems to be talked about so much,
> > about "radio saving radio" is just that- noble. Radio has
>
> > nobody but itself to blame for the exodus to alternative
> > entertainment sources, so when a fresh, new format comes
> on and is successful (perhaps at the expense of other radio
> > stations), it's not, for instance Jack's fault.
> Individual stations' mission is to get listeners and if it comes from
> a competitor, more power to them. It's is the radio
> > industry's big-picture task to provide compelling
> > entertainment to slow or stop the overall erosion of
> > listening. You're never going to reverse it.
> >
> > I don't read any of the studies on Jack/Variety Hits as
> > saying this approach will "save radio"- I don't believe
> > anybody is attempting to say that.
> >
> > But it is saving some radio stations.
> >
>

 

[OldiesCat]

Adult Hits

Here's where you and I part ways. You've stated over and over again what bad radio Jack is and how it's being "done badly" and "under false pretenses".

Listen- there are a lot of formats and stations I don't like and don't "get". It, however, doesn't mean they're bad or wrong IF they have good or great ratings. If their ratings are growing (in some cases #1 25-54 already), a lot of target listeners are digging this format.

If you're as smart and experienced as you claim, even you cannot stick your head in the sand and totally deny that many (most) Jack/V.H. stations are off to great starts. It's OK if they're not your cup of tea- just don't make yourself look like a total sour grapes whiner by making outrageous claims about the format's legitimatacy or ratings facts. That makes YOU look (to borrow a phrase) "small market".
>
> I don't think one needs to be "positive" when they
> see something being done badly or more importantly under
> false pretenses.
>
> We have an issue where someone high up believes this is a
> good move. We have others who believe to not be the
> "greatest new thing since sliced bread".
>
> As Seven stated, it's a format change, nothing more, nothing
> less. It's not ground-breaking, in fact, it's not as
> "different" as Jammin' Oldies was.
> I dont' recall the whiners stating "you're just being
> negative" when they pounced all over Dance, 80s or Jammin'
> Oldies. All had inherent problems due to people up above not
> liking the format and not wanting to do it or do it
> properly. Others had big issues internally and wanted their
> "brand name" in the market, at any price.
>
> 80s in Chicago worked well, it had problems from above.
> Dance worked well, it had it problems from above. Jammin'
> Oldies worked very well and died because of problems from
> above.
>
> I'm more of a Jammin' Oldies fan than anything else. I'm
> also a big electronica fan which for a man my age is an
> abberation I'm sure. But what worked in Chicago worked. What
> failed failed for reasons that really had nothing to do with
> the formats if they were allowed to grow or leave the group
> that provided such bad management from above.
>
> What I find most amusing about the entire Jammin' Oldies
> thing is that Lite FM in Chicago has been doing [basically]
> a J.O. type format on the weekends and more and more of
> those title are being put in every day. It's amazing, you
> really should see their logs. Check Mediabase, it's really
> incredible. A full 180 degree turn for that station. We'll
> see what numbers that brings.
>
>
> > Agreed, as usual, OC.
> >
> > Funny how people with no horse in the race can stand on
> the
> > sidelines
> > and make such swooping statements as if anyone asked or
> > cared. I think
> > that even if certain people could put their exact music,
> > imaging and voice on their own radio station, 100% what
> they
> > want, they'd still bitch because
> > it makes them feel bigger and better about themselves.
> >
> > 95% of listeners to radio have asked for something
> different
> > and unique
> > for years and no one listened. Now, something new is out
> > there that could
> > really change the sound (and mindsets) of this industry
> and
> > very few people
> > on this board will embrace VH because they have predicted
> > the future and
> > think they know what listeners want. Whose has been
> > brainwashed by the copy-cat mentality of radio? The
> > think-out-of-the-box programmers that take a chance with
> > Jack or the people who make no decisions, who cut down
> radio
> > constantly, and
> > who don't bring anything to the table EVER?
> >
> > And, why the McDonald's analogy? Jack and AA are fine
> dining
> > compared to the
> > tired overused "truths" that have given us stations of
> > little substance.
> >
> > Whether you like JACK itself or not, can't anyone say the
> > direction of slightly
> > different radio formatting, marketing and thinking is
> > POSITIVE?
> >
>

 

[OldiesCat]

Adult Hits

A) I'm not and have never been a shill or "corporate lackey" for anybody. I don't think the format is the greatest thing since sliced bread but I do recognize how effective it's been so far in responding to the growing drumbeat of listeners totally burned out on same old/same old ultra-short playlist formats.

B) you keep trying to deflect the real discussion by continuously bringing up Jammin' Oldies. Old news, ain't working.

C) In MOST markets, Jack is doing well and continuing to grow. This is not my opinion- I'm looking at this thing we call Arbitron ratings, the only legit measurement of listening. Only JACK-type markets stagnant are NYC, SF, Denver and Boston. Just about every other (and there are many and growing) are really off to nice starts. Seattle just had a huge trend today, for example. I hope I'm wrong in saying this, but it sure feels like the Variety Hits/Jack format could be top 5 25-54 in every market it's in and you would still find some way to rag on it, call it bad and stamp it a failure. And, that's really, truly sad and pathetic.

Perhaps the REAL deal here is that you ran a station that got JACKed and have a totally warped perspective on it all(?).

>
> The "beef" is this. You're overhyping the format. Jammin'
> Oldies exploded all over the place and the plug was pulled
> for many reasons in many different markets. Jack is
> imploding in important markets or stagnant, in some markets
> it's doing well (and in time I believe will be nothing more
> than a "remember that station?") I don't remember
> spinmansters coming out of the woodwork to hump Jammin'
> Oldies' leg like this when they came out the box with
> blazing numbers IN MOST MARKETS, CRUCIAL MARKETS because
> they didn't have to. When Jammin' Oldies became stale with a
> 180 song playlist and wasn't allowed to tweak or grow, it
> died. In Chicago, Kiss is still nowhere near the profit or
> billing it had done with J.O. That's not a perceived
> reality, it is reality.
>
> You're a lackey for this format which leads me to believe
> you're an implant for the Company. If not, I hope they pay
> you to be this loyal.
>
> While I'll concede that if they ever get Jack to a point
> where there's some cohesion to it's programming, it may
> survive in some markets. As it stands now? I don't believe
> it will last in it's present state any longer than the
> "dreaded" 80s or "Jammin' Oldies" formats did. It's a white
> based format so they'll hang onto it a bit longer than they
> did with Jammin' Oldies, as long as it doesn't affect any of
> their other stations in their clusters.
>
> If that is the case then this is a band-aid over the bigger
> problem and management failed at seeing it. Prolonging the
> agony is not success.

 

[musicloverII]

Re: Adult Hits

I don't stick my head in the sand. I look at Jack and say what's the difference between this "wonderful" idea and Jammin' Oldies? J.O. exploded on the scene in one book in major markets and BILLED. It was laid to rest for reasons that had nothing to do with the format.

I'm bored with people claiming something is great and wonderful when other formats have done as good or better in shorter time and been put aside as no big deal. It's not intellectually honest to state that Dance, Jammin' Oldies or 80s didn't work (at least in Chicago). They did wonderful, they were victims of circumstance, stupidity, in fighting and mismanagement.

I don't see Jack as anything more than a radio station on autopilot playing many songs already heard every single day on the radio. Horrendous transitions and a guy who's snide comments become tiring.

No sour grapes towards a format, anger at blind acceptance of how wonderful and new something is when NEW and WONDERFUL have occured and been put aside because of stupidity or lack of understanding WHY people were enjoying it. (honest to God statement in a meeting with a mindless consultant)

> Here's where you and I part ways. You've stated over and
> over again what bad radio Jack is and how it's being "done
> badly" and "under false pretenses".
>
> Listen- there are a lot of formats and stations I don't like
> and don't "get". It, however, doesn't mean they're bad or
> wrong IF they have good or great ratings. If their ratings
> are growing (in some cases #1 25-54 already), a lot of
> target listeners are digging this format.
>
> If you're as smart and experienced as you claim, even you
> cannot stick your head in the sand and totally deny that
> many (most) Jack/V.H. stations are off to great starts.
> It's OK if they're not your cup of tea- just don't make
> yourself look like a total sour grapes whiner by making
> outrageous claims about the format's legitimatacy or ratings
> facts. That makes YOU look (to borrow a phrase) "small
> market".
> >
> > I don't think one needs to be "positive" when they
> > see something being done badly or more importantly under
> > false pretenses.
> >
> > We have an issue where someone high up believes this is a
> > good move. We have others who believe to not be the
> > "greatest new thing since sliced bread".
> >
> > As Seven stated, it's a format change, nothing more,
> nothing
> > less. It's not ground-breaking, in fact, it's not as
> > "different" as Jammin' Oldies was.
> > I dont' recall the whiners stating "you're just being
> > negative" when they pounced all over Dance, 80s or Jammin'
>
> > Oldies. All had inherent problems due to people up above
> not
> > liking the format and not wanting to do it or do it
> > properly. Others had big issues internally and wanted
> their
> > "brand name" in the market, at any price.
> >
> > 80s in Chicago worked well, it had problems from above.
> > Dance worked well, it had it problems from above. Jammin'
> > Oldies worked very well and died because of problems from
> > above.
> >
> > I'm more of a Jammin' Oldies fan than anything else. I'm
> > also a big electronica fan which for a man my age is an
> > abberation I'm sure. But what worked in Chicago worked.
> What
> > failed failed for reasons that really had nothing to do
> with
> > the formats if they were allowed to grow or leave the
> group
> > that provided such bad management from above.
> >
> > What I find most amusing about the entire Jammin' Oldies
> > thing is that Lite FM in Chicago has been doing
> [basically]
> > a J.O. type format on the weekends and more and more of
> > those title are being put in every day. It's amazing, you
> > really should see their logs. Check Mediabase, it's really
>
> > incredible. A full 180 degree turn for that station. We'll
>
> > see what numbers that brings.
> >
> >
> > > Agreed, as usual, OC.
> > >
> > > Funny how people with no horse in the race can stand on
> > the
> > > sidelines
> > > and make such swooping statements as if anyone asked or
> > > cared. I think
> > > that even if certain people could put their exact music,
>
> > > imaging and voice on their own radio station, 100% what
> > they
> > > want, they'd still bitch because
> > > it makes them feel bigger and better about themselves.
> > >
> > > 95% of listeners to radio have asked for something
> > different
> > > and unique
> > > for years and no one listened. Now, something new is out
>
> > > there that could
> > > really change the sound (and mindsets) of this industry
> > and
> > > very few people
> > > on this board will embrace VH because they have
> predicted
> > > the future and
> > > think they know what listeners want. Whose has been
> > > brainwashed by the copy-cat mentality of radio? The
> > > think-out-of-the-box programmers that take a chance with
>
> > > Jack or the people who make no decisions, who cut down
> > radio
> > > constantly, and
> > > who don't bring anything to the table EVER?
> > >
> > > And, why the McDonald's analogy? Jack and AA are fine
> > dining
> > > compared to the
> > > tired overused "truths" that have given us stations of
> > > little substance.
> > >
> > > Whether you like JACK itself or not, can't anyone say
> the
> > > direction of slightly
> > > different radio formatting, marketing and thinking is
> > > POSITIVE?
> > >
> >
>

 

[Yeziknoradio]

Re: Jack

> Funny- I remember in the mid '80s when Oldies stations first
> came on, the general feeling by radio folk was "who the hell
> wants to hear a station that only bunch of songs that are
> 20-30 years old-- no currents, no recurrents. What a
> joke!". They were wrong.

YES! 1050 CHUM (Toronto Canada) missed the first 3 years of the boat.
In 1986 they decided to say good bye to hit music, (for obvious reasons)
but instead of going back to their roots right away, some clown must have agreed "What a joke" and fliped to (oldies based) favorites of yesterday and today. It failed miserably. By 1989 they were all oldies, and continue to do...well enough. (better than they did with sports...15 million dollars down the drain later, they went back to oldies again less than a year later.)

Note: Key 590 (now Fan 590) down the dial was a solid gold station in 86', but it shouldn't have stoped CHUM from going straight into their roots in 86' and saying "We played them then, we're playing them again"




<P ID="signature">______________
"If you never say NO, How much is your YES worth?"
</P>

 

[HomerJay]

Re: Jack is NOT saving radio

> This noble quest that seems to be talked about so much,
> about "radio saving radio" is just that- noble. Radio has
> nobody but itself to blame for the exodus to alternative
> entertainment sources, so when a fresh, new format comes on
> and is successful (perhaps at the expense of other radio
> stations), it's not, for instance Jack's fault.

I would disagree that "radio" (by which I believe most people refer to the executives/managers/owners/consultantes involved) is entirely to blame for defections. The technology is simply limited and, unlike TVs which could take on more than terrestrial transmissions, radio as a practical matter simply can't get around them. That's not to say there aren't bad decisions--of course there are; but to overlook basic realities of what competing media can do that radio can't is to over-simplify.

Individual
> stations' mission is to get listeners and if it comes from a
> competitor, more power to them. It's is the radio
> industry's big-picture task to provide compelling
> entertainment to slow or stop the overall erosion of
> listening. You're never going to reverse it.
Agreed, though I think slowing is the most that can be achieved, and even that is to a large degree impacted by technology. What's compelling to me is not the least bit compelling to my wife, and what's compelling to her isn't compelling to our friends, etc., etc., etc. Rare talents like Stern may continue to have mass appeal, but in a world in which we can get exactly what suits our taste, the idea of "compelling entertainment" is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[tibbs]

Re: Adult Hits

>80s in Chicago worked well, it had problems from above. Dance worked well, it >had it problems from above. Jammin' Oldies worked very well and died because >of problems from above.

>I'm more of a Jammin' Oldies fan than anything else. I'm also a big >electronica fan which for a man my age is an abberation I'm sure. But what >worked in Chicago worked. What failed failed for reasons that really had >nothing to do with the formats if they were allowed to grow or leave the group >that provided such bad management from above.

Guess what?


I can't disagree with you at all on what is the biggest issue of stagnation on formats from those who cannot see that any format is an evolution. Why anyone
has made the dscision to limit a format (JO, Oldies or 80's) when a current
based format (CHR, AAA, Country) should be constantly fluid is beyond me. That's
where 99% of the overall problem is, management playing it safe. Been there,
done that, fought it and ended up proving big gains using common sense and
electric energy in all aspects of the station. It's like this dumbass mindset
that food products have a certain lifecycle, so you blow them out of the gate,
then pull the advertising, let them settle, and then watch another product
steal the marketshares. It's totally opposite of competition, yet since it's
"the way it's been done for years" we take it as a truth in business.

I fear that'll be where Jack screws up. My hope in VH is that it does change
and ebb and flow. So, really, we don't disagree on it. I do think the music
has to change at least every 45 days, enough to keep it fresh, because many of
the songs have potential for burnout or boredom. Then again, JO, 80's, etc.
have the same problem due to narrow-minded playlists and decision makers.

BTW, I am 43 and like Electronica as well, so maybe that makes two weirdos
on this board, although I bet you're younger than me. Dance is great, too.
Never have really had much contact with Jammin' Oldies, since it was a
dude from Citadel here. Sounded okay for the two weeks they believed in it.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by tibbs on 09/25/05 02:51 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[tibbs]

Re: Jack is NOT saving radio

Radio, eventually will go the way the typewriter did when the computers
came around. Once radio is not the only medium in our vehicles, it'll be all
but doomed. UNLESS, radio can figure out how to still connect personally
with people. Which has been taken for granted. Think the multiples will still be
around in 10 years? No, it'll be a bunch of us who really have/had a love affair
with radio "the way we remembered it was when we were kids" holding onto it. And
we hopefully will get a $5M station by today's standards at 1985 prices ($500,000.) And we will all laugh at ourselves for refusing to ever wear a suit.

 

[HomerJay]

Re: Jack is NOT saving radio

> Radio, eventually will go the way the typewriter did when
> the computers
> came around. Once radio is not the only medium in our
> vehicles, it'll be all
> but doomed. UNLESS, radio can figure out how to still
> connect personally
> with people. Which has been taken for granted.

Now that's what I think limits the potential of terrestrial radio. The closest any station has come to connecting with my tastes in several years is Philadelphia's Jack-like Ben, and even that leaves out large chunks of what I like to hear. Satellite radio has the advantage in being able to collect the small audiences of niche formats, same as cable TV.

Wide-scale success for radio will be nationally based, for the most part...personalities like Stern who can tap universal interests for a large segment of the population.

 

[OldiesCat]

Adult Hits

It's not a format's job nor responsibility to keep talent employed. That is the responsibility of the talent.

While I truly believe Jack-type stations WILL and SHOULD have personalities, the mission of radio stations is to get ratings so they can turn them into revenue. While it might not be the way I would do it, if they put Jack on-the-air, get great ratings THEN find out they'd be dramatically changing the station too much (for their listeners) by adding personalities, they may think twice.

My message to talent who want to stay on-the-air: be different, be compelling,
talk TO your audience about things they care about. You'll have no problems staying in radio and prospering.


> ...and how good would your favorite hockey team be if it got
> rid of their farm team...Hmmm?
>
> I love the music on Jack FM, (and oldies stations,
> respectfully) but It's tough enough for the rookie to get
> their start thanks to automation, and equally as tough for a
> radio personality to go down the ladder, if need be, and
> polish themselves up.
>
> I don't want to turn on my radio in twenty years and hear
> some bum off the street yelling "Woo-hoo! I'm on the air!"
>
> Automation has done enough harm to the starter kit of radio
> talent, we don't need termination of good radio talent
> today, only to find that tomorrow we can't find it.
>

 

[OldiesCat]

local vs. imported

> NEWSFLASH: Even local, live jocks mispronounce street names...

Great point. I always love this "if they're not sitting in the studio giving local temps, it sucks" mentality.

I'd rather have (in the appropriate station and market) and VoiceTracked jock from a bigger market who sounds like a million bucks than a local jock who mails it in and spends their whole show talking to phone groupies. Hate to say this, but many jocks have gotten themselves Voice Tracked out of gigs by giving the bare minimum on-the-air and in the station's hallways- on-air, these types do the same thing the same way every day on-the-air and do their four & hit the door without ever attempting to be a great team contributor off-air. Not all but many.

(BTW- if you take great offense to this, it probably means you're embarrassed this could be you. Instead of getting ticked at me, look in the mirror, so a little soul searching and decide whether you want to be part of radio's problem or the solution).
>

 

[Seven_Costanza]

Your opinion please...

...what do you think there is less of...

raw radio talent that could be coached to near greatness, or PD's that have the ability to coach that talent?

 

[OldiesCat]

opinion please...

> what do you think there is less of- raw radio talent that could be coached to
> near greatness, or PD's that have the ability to coach that talent?


the latter, sort of- I think there are PDs who have the ability but can't be bothered to pass on the knowledge they were blessed to have taught to them.
The talent will always be out there- it's a matter of them kicking down doors in combo with Programmers who are willing to actually take the time to teach.

There are Progrmmers who do this and, as it's been throgh the rock & roll era, we are fortunate to have them. But the number who actually have the wisdom and are willing to pass it on to the next generation of talent is, IMHO, growing thin.