• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

R&R Summit

Re: Topic

whatzthat wrote:
"I'm not alone either, we have agreement on both sides of the issue."


You have yet to prove the "issue" exsists. I'm not standing on any side. I'm asking for credibility.

Which after dozens of posts, has yet to be given.


"I hate the low blows though, very unnecesary."


You call it a low blow that I am challenging assumptions? That I am asking for a back up to these claims? That I am not going to sit on the sidelines and let someone broad brush this format with a theory that has never been substantiated?

It is very necessary to not let assumptions be presented as facts.

A good debate will always include a party or two that will cut through the clutter of "opinion" and seek facts.

A good debate will always include a party or two that widdles away at an argument in order to bring out the faults in the claim.

That isn't a low blow. That is honest challenge.

It is about seeking truths...and not settling for thoughts.







<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
 
Re: Topic To The Real Radio People

whatzthat wrote:
"I suppose being in radio for almost 20 years and keeping stations going doesn't make me a real radio person."

A real radio person. Hmmm....

A colleague recently reminded me how important signing your name was to something. Without your name, he said, you have no credibility.

That sounded extreme to me at the time. But you know, there is something to be said for being able to put your name on something. To stand up boldly and stand behind (and in front of) every word that comes from your mouth, every statement ever put in print.

Lots of years in broadcasting, and I don't think I have ever made a comment I wouldn't stamp with my own name.

I don't always say the most diplomatic things. I certainly don't always say the most correct things. No human does. But whatever I have said, I have never been reluctant to sign my name to it. Not ever.

Elizabeth<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
 
Re: Topic corrected - I left a word out

> > "Does it not occur to you that listeners might have desires
> > that they have expressed that are being mirrored on our
> > stations that actually ask them?"
>
> I'm sorry but I don't think I understand this sentence.


Yeah...that gets a little ugly toward the end.

Sequence: stations ask listeners and potential listeners what they want, stations reflect the listeners' desires without regard to their own desires, and that doesn't seem to occur to you.



> If you mean that listeners are letting stations know what they
> want and it's getting played.

Hunh? I think that's missing about half of its sentence.



> Not true but you don't program
> your station according to what is requested by listeners,
> you can listen to your listeners by doing testing.


Hunh?



> You do your best to reach those you are targeting.


Yes.



> You can focus your target so tightly though that you become boring.


Not to the target! :)



> The rest you wrote has no reference to the report that 95%
> of Christian Contemporary Radio is white which was reported
> by Radio and Records at their summit.


Hunh? Sure it does!



> This is not about authors, it's about radio.


Gosh...do real-world examples not register with you? It's all the same! We're people producing content for likely consumers!



> You blast me...


Really?



> ...and then you swing to my direction at the end of your comments.


Not that I recall...!



> I'm not criticizing sucessful A/C's.


Sure you are! You're accusing them and their audiences of racism!



> There is the slightest
> possibilty that A/C's could have a lot more success and in
> turn find themselves with higher ratings and happier
> listeners.


No, not likely. See, record companies test songs for their potential, and some stations are actually testing various songs that they're not playing to see if there's interest from their audiences.



> Read my words; I'm not criticizing anyone, I'm
> talking about something that most in the industry realize is
> a problem.


How is doing exactly what your listeners want "a problem?"

Again, you're thinking "top-down." Try to switch to "bottom-up!"



> Why would I criticize the inspos that have teaching.


Because there are often two or three of them running the same programs!



> Everyone has the right to program as they please, teaching, music, whatever.


Oh. Thank you. I guess we're done.




> Programming should be in the interest though of meeting the needs
> of the area the station is in.


Interesting....you say "needs of the area" rather than "desires of people." Again, you're assuming you know best and will implement it top-down. You're going to fail.



> You have actually attempted to say exactly what I desire.


I don't think so...where? I'm saying, "listeners will decide." You're saying, "I know what those people need, and, by golly, I'm gonna force-feed it to 'em!"



> More creative programming,not duplication of formats.


Problem -- "creative programming," when mentioned on internet message boards, almost always means "programming the way I want it done."



> With that comes freedom but it isn't going to come if a problem
> is hidden.


There's no problem unless the listeners say there is. In this case, they're not saying that.

As far as I know.
 
Re: Topic

> > "No. But obviously, I am not alone.
> >
> > And that is refreshing."
>
>
> Not quite, he was talking about programming the way you
> detest.


No, I'm definitely with Elizabeth on this one....
 
Re: Topic

neutral observer wrote:
"we're both real radio people who have a clue about how successful radio is done..."

Thanks. :)

"if I've successfully discerned anything about her personality by reading her posts (and she/me/mine), we'd probably have some pretty good knock-down, drag-outs if we ever got into that 10-20%!"

and it would be fun!

"Actually, we probably wouldn't...I would know she's in a particular camp, she would recognize I'm in a particular camp, and we would both know that both camps have their success stories and their share of also-rans. So, everything would be fine..."

Respect and professionalism at it's best.

Thanks for your quality posts on this thread.


<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
 
Re: Unfair darts

That means you should be much more eager to listen
> and learn than to pontificate.
>
Or maybe to more eager to avoid Christian music stations completely.
>
>
> > Do most Christian AC stations play any non-caucasian
> artist
> > in heavy rotation. The answer is no.
>
>
> No, you're wrong. The answer is "yes!"
>
> Nicole C Mullen has two of the strongest-testing and, thus,
> most-played songs of the format -- "Redeemer" and "Call On
> Jesus." Many stations also play her "I Am," Mary Mary's
> "Shackles," Tait's "How Great Thou Art" and "Lose This
> Life," and songs from Anointed, Out Of Eden, Anthony Evans,
> Ruben Studdard, Kirk Franklin, God's Property, George Rowe,
> and Bebe & Cece Winans.

Maybe Nicole C. Mullens, Anointed and a few of the older Bebe & Cece Winans songs. The Billboard charts has a greater variety list. The Urban Gospel's aren't playing any variety. There was a great upheaval among black listeners when Angelo & Vernonica won a Stellar Ward in 1996 and their music fit the format well. It was a color issue.
>
>
>
>
> > Yes, only the Savior can correct the issues. However, He
> > will not solve any issue if we don't confess, repent, and
> > decide to follow His ways instead of remaining in our own
> > comfort zone of self-righteousness and self-centeredness.
>
>
>
> Ha! LOL!!
>
> Isn't it the height of self-righteousness and
> self-centeredness to assume that you could sit atop a little
> ol' radio station and implement a top-down solution to this
> "problem" you say exists!
>
> Look -- this is just radio, and Christian AC stations play
> the music the listeners say is the music that speaks to
> them. There is not a problem unless and until the listeners
> say there is.
>
> You remain in a top-down paradigm; we're bottom-up. You
> want to speak and force; we want to listen and serve.
>
> You have no top-down solution because listening is a
> voluntary action and liking is a matter of personal
> preference. You cannot force either.
>
> You cannot force people to like music...period.

I understand. In other words, CHR listeners are acceptable to a variety forms of music while Christians are locked up in their own little box.
 
Re: Unfair darts

> The RadioFan wrote:
> "There are only a small few Christian stations without a
> color-code format."
>
> radioelizabeth wrote:
> "Again, please site the specific stations that you know use
> this "color-code format".
>
> The RadioFan wrote:
> "Don't play games. This is obvious."
>
> Apparently not. Again, site specifics.
>
>

I have sited the specifics. It is what is being played on the airwaves.
 
Re: Topic

> You would have to address that question with each specific
> station. If you can site one station that answers in accord
> with your assumptions, then we've got an issue (with that
> station). Until you can, it's theory, and nothing more.
>
It's not theory. It's reality.
 
Re: Topic

That sig line was not specific to the previous post (I've changed it). This discussion is no different than the thousands on these boards about "why don't stations play this" (oldies stations playing "Disco Duck" because after all, it was number one once). It's not any more simple than asking your listeners what they want and giving it to them. Much as you might want to "teach them", it's not going to happen. I'm a big Motown fan, and at one station I worked, if I could program it based on my personal tastes I'd have played more Motown. The music tests rejected all but a handful of Motown songs. It's not a racial thing..if the audience wants to hear certain songs, you play them..but you can't force them on your audience and expect tem not to go elsewhere. Certain;y, there are a handful of people who lsiten to Christian radio exclusively. Then there's everyone else.<P ID="signature">______________
Classic Christmas Jingle

http://www.thebig8.net/merry_christmas_from_cklw.mp3</P>
 
Re: Topic corrected - I left a word out

Let's just leave A/C the way it is, playing what the programmers want and when listeners call like they did to "E" and want to know why more black music is not being played just disregard it as format (even though songs that are released to that format are being passed by).
You are so contradictory. You seem angry that listeners are not listened too by A/C stations yet you want everything left alone.
Test music(which I mentioned but got a "huh" from you) but remember this point, if you don't test music from some of the artists I mentioned how do you know the audience likes or hates them.
 
Re: Topic To The Real Radio People

I notice that neither of you answered my question of whether you are on the air currently or just do VTs.

This is a discussion board where people can use user names and most on here do. I'm not breaking any rules. Neutral Observer is more than likely not his/her name. In attempting to "get to me", you have stated that most on Radio-info have no credibilty. You heard it from "E" here folks!
 
Re: Unfair darts

First, there is no such thing as a "color code
> playlist."
I agree with that. As I said before I don't think it is a conscious or deliberate act when some of the music is ignored or passed by.
Gospel radio also could program better for their audience in respect to this situation(mentioned way back in earlier discussions). I can't really put it into words with a keyboard but when some one tunes into Gospel radio, it should be for all people since many white people love that style of music. It shouldn't be so self inclusive.
Secular radio doesn't have strictly black music and white music any longer - has anyone noticed that? Since we are Christian radio, we are supposed to be the head not the tail.
I'm switching to the church now, we deal with many churches, the new title they are calling themselves is "multi-cultural". They notice what has been missing in their congregations also and they are not afraid to talk to about it.

I think we may plead ignorance in radio, and I don't mean that in a bad way. Perhaps programmers automatically assume that their listeners wouldn't like these songs. I have never implied that anyone does this deliberately. No one in this industry is a racist. I think we are comfortable.

There is a lot we can do to unify the music racially. I know you don't agree. I have been praying about it for years and doing my own part to bring music together, it only takes one.

I really think this can be talked about without all the emotional "junk" that keeps coming out. No one is being attacked, perhaps no one has really noticed what is happening. That was my orginal thought brought on by the R&R percentage.

My vision is that Christian Contemporary radio would be for all races(race wouldn't even be noticed).
 
Re: Topic

whatzthat wrote:
"Let's just leave A/C the way it is, playing what the programmers want and when listeners call like they did to "E" and want to know why more black music is not being played just disregard it as format (even though songs that
> are released to that format are being passed by)."


I did not disregard it. I addressed it. The caller was out of line. No song should ever be spun based on color. EITHER WAY.

Again, you keep calling for unity and reaching out...and you have yet to show any substance in your claim.

You make these broad assumptions about why songs are passed by. PROVE IT.

You can't.


"if you don't test music from some of the artists I mentioned how do you know the audience likes or hates them."

Again, the color of a person's skin should never be a factor when selecting, promoting, spinning, purchasing, or even testing music.



<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
 
Re: Topic To The Real Radio People

"I notice that neither of you answered my question of whether you are on the air currently or just do VTs."

I am currently working in radio. Live, VT, Production, Programming and much more. And I work with formats in "mainstream" and in "religious" radio.

You have yet to answer my question about WHO YOU ARE.



"This is a discussion board where people can use user names and most on here do. I'm not breaking any rules. Neutral Observer is more than likely not his/her name. In attempting to "get to me", you have stated that most on Radio-info have no credibilty. You heard it from "E" here folks!"


I never said you were breaking rules. I simply stated an observation how I have never been reluctant to stamp my name on anything I've ever said...but obviously, for one reason or another, you are.

When you drop names, site your vast experience, and still offend this industry and refuse to say who you are...it is telling.

Rules or rights or whatever. It is still telling.<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
 
Re: Unfair darts

The RadioFan wrote:
"I have sited the specifics. It is what is being played on the airwaves."


That is not specific at all.
<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
 
Re: Topic

you have got to be kidding.

might want to follow your own threads more closely.

<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
 
Re: Topic To The Real Radio People

"When you drop names, site your vast experience, and still
> offend this industry and refuse to say who you are...it is
> telling."
>
You are the biggest offender. I'm sure your life is one big argument everywhere.
 
Re: Topic

" I did not disregard it. I addressed it. The caller was out
> of line. No song should ever be spun based on color. EITHER
> WAY. "

You are way out of line and live in "la la" land. Speaking of WAY(radio)...well I won't go there.
 
Re: Topic corrected - I left a word out

> Let's just leave A/C the way it is, playing what the
> programmers want...


Your assumption is sooo flawed! You just can't stop thinking "top-down," can you?

Look, let's drop to the bottom line real fast here -- Christian AC has four (maybe five) stations that are the obvious leaders of the format, and, interestingly, all four sound completely different from each other. I know for certain that all four of those stations do their own music and perceptual/strategic research (not that they're the only ones, mind you). All four reflect the unique nature of their respective markets, and, as I said, all four sound noticeably different.

Next, the programmers of all of the rest of stations in the format probably have a favorite among those four and use it as something of a model. Now, many of those have their own current/recurrent music testing that they do, but some may not be able to test their gold to the same degree or do many perceptuals or strategics (but, not being on the inside of them, I have no idea who does what to what degree). Consequently, some programmers may look to their model or favorite for cues for what to play. That may wind up making it look as if those music decisions were made top-down, but, knowing that the stations that are the models are doing their own primary research, it turns out those decisions were also bottom-up (though, of course, from some other geographic region's listeners).

On the other hand, the final decision does, most likely, belong to the programmer, so I suppose it's hypothetically possible that you could be right. But there's still much more to the whole thing, and I just can't keep sitting at this keyboard to go into it all.




> ...and when listeners call like they did to
> "E" and want to know why more black music is not being
> played just disregard it as format (even though songs that
> are released to that format are being passed by).


That's a very odd way of putting things...again making me wonder about your background (sorry). Are you really suggesting that single, out-of-the-blue calls of that sort should be the basis for making significant changes in the face of a body of knowledge and data about what the audience wants?



> You are so contradictory.


Not that I know of....perhaps you should re-read the thread in order such that context and flow are retained.



> You seem angry that listeners are
> not listened too by A/C stations yet you want everything
> left alone.


Uh, nooooo.....I'm saying that listeners <u>are</u> listened to by AC stations, and that's why the stations sound exactly like they do. And, considering that these stations are reflecting exactly what their listeners want, that's why "everything" should be left alone.

Only a fool would make changes based on one phone call from an unusually motivated caller. As a matter of fact, considering the organizing and call-to-action nonsense that's taking place on the internet these days, only a fool would make changes based solely on any number of calls or emails coming in!

When the audience and/or its preferences change, so will the stations. You will fail massively if you try it any top-down way.



> Test music(which I mentioned but got a "huh" from you) but
> remember this point, if you don't test music from some of
> the artists I mentioned how do you know the audience likes
> or hates them.

I just told you -- labels and stations are testing it!

The take-away: you cannot force people to like any particular kind of music and listen to any particular station, and there is no top-down solution to the "problem" you say you see.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom