• 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 corrected - I left a word out

"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?"
I told you before NO- when that seems to be a topic of discussion while in the midst of the public then you need to look at whats going on. I've heard the gripes about CCM radio many times while in the midst of our public.
Individual stations should test music. I used to do that in marketing research. Of course it was secular radio but I also know the programmer's side of testing music. If it isn't tested by the station then how do you know whether the listeners are like it or not. I can't get much clearer.
I can't spend more time on this and doing it by email is clearly not getting anyone's point across.
I will sum up that there is probably a misconception of what the listener wants and a non-deliberate decision to by pass urban music. The end, I'm busy and this seems to have been a real waste of time.
 
Re: Topic corrected - I left a word out

> ...when that seems to be a topic of
> discussion while in the midst of the public then you need to
> look at whats going on. I've heard the gripes about CCM
> radio many times while in the midst of our public.


...and, in another format I've been involved in, we heard the same "in the midst of our public" gripes about the older songs of the format. Well, an absolute idiot of a programmer who shared the same desire for those songs went ahead and did it -- he played those songs that the gripers griped were missing, and, being one of the gripers himself, it all seemed very natural, very logical, and very right to him. In only a single book of this continuously-rated market, he cut that station's ratings (almost to the decimal point) in half! The idiot programmer couldn't figure out why it happened...after all, it seemed the right thing to do considering that "so many" felt the exact same way he did. It took that station the ejection of almost all of that music and almost four years to get back where it started, and research shows that its hold on its position is very, very weak.

You listen to the gripes "in the midst of our public" at your own serious risk.
 
Re: Topic To The Real Radio People

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

whatzthat wrote:
"You are the biggest offender. I'm sure your life is one big argument everywhere."


I have defended this industry and the people within it by challenging your broad brush unsubstantiated claims of bigotry and racism.

Anyone following my threads will see again and again how I have asked for sited sources, credible examples and real life evidence. But those requests have fallen on deaf ears. You have offended every programmer in this business by stating there is a problem of "color codes" and racism in our industry and not backing it up.

And then you site your vast experience and all the "friends" you know...you claim you are not alone in your speculations, but not once, not once, have you backed your theory.

There is argument in my life when I am confronted with fiction being presented as fact. There is passion in my life when I am accused of being difficult, because someone can't handle a little abrasive cleaning up of their junk science.

Elizabeth



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

radioelizabeth wrote:
"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."


The RadioFan wrote:
"It's not theory. It's reality."


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

radioelizabeth wrote:
" 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. "



whatzthat wrote:
"You are way out of line and live in "la la" land. Speaking of WAY(radio)...well I won't go there."

Oh please do, I would just love to see what theories and assumptions you have to say about that.

Thanks for the laugh today. That comment is simply hysterical.

Elizabeth


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

whatzthat wrote:
"I will sum up that there is probably a misconception of what the listener wants and a non-deliberate decision to by pass urban music."


is probably is not IS... and never has probably ever been proven. Just assumed, by you. This non-deliberate decision has also never been shown truth, just assumption.

"The end, I'm busy and this seems to have been a real waste of time."

actually, I think it's been very educational.



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

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

>
"actually, I think it's been very educational."

I certainly have been given an education of how "NOT" to waste my time. Why not have a slogan that says "Elizabeth Rules" rather than "Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive", you can at least drop the pleasant because I haven't seen any of that. Here's another description you might use; "Tenacious, Judgemental and Passionate" (I'll give you passionate).
 
Re: Topic

> It's not theory. It's reality.
>

Ive tried to stay out of this discussion but if its reality then NAME stations and show me playlists of stations that are programming based on color! I dont know of any, I know the stations I have delt with, color does not even come to mind, it's about what people want to hear, after all, without listeners there is not a real reason to have a station.

Second, I listen to Christian AC from time to time and I have heard Franklin, Out Of Eden and Nicole C Mullins still gets played in fairly heavy rotation on the local AC station, and this is on MORE than one station. I listen to everything from Air1 and Klove to the local Christian AC stations to WayFM and others, I dont know one of them that are avoiding artists "because of Color" One of the stations I listen to often in Tampa Fl plays Kirt Franklin and others... So I dont see where one can say that Christian AC radio as a whole is avoiding artists that are not one color.

Can't we just get back to what God has called us to do and that is to bring the love of Jesus to those that are hurting, are in pain and are seeking for some hope in this world.

<P ID="signature">______________
Program Director/Music Director
X Music Online
The X
Today's Best Music
http://www.xmusiconline.com/</P>
 
Re: Topic corrected

You know,

Not once have I personally attacked or insulted you. I have challenged your theory and drawn out the errors in your claims. I have even gone as far as to point out the double standard in some of your posts.

I have asked for your name and questioned your decision not to state it.

But not once have I personally attacked you.

The fact that you take the debate to that is once again, an offense.

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

whatzthat wrote:
"I would hate to be around you when you personally "attack" someone."

My guess would be it would be an easy debate. You would present a point, I would challenge the facts of it, you would change the subject and attack me personally for challenging your position, but still not present any clear and convincing evidence of your "facts".

That's a clear sign of defeat.

This isn't personal whatzthat...if you thought you could just jump on a board and make a claim of bigotry and racism without being questioned on it's merits, you were wrong.

My attack has been against your premise, not you. Your attack has been against me personally, and you have slammed my company's imaging as well.

Sad...and again, in any healthy debate, a clear sign of defeat.

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

>I'm not defeated "E". I'm irritated and having some nonChristian thoughts right now, and I don't need to waste my time discussing something with someone who continues to act like she is the "Victim" and her industry is being picked on. It is my industry too.
You are pretty unhealthy; "My attack has been against your premise, not you. Your attack has been against me personally, and you have slammed my company's imaging as well." That is really a sick statement from you!
You honestly don't know how you slam people, I haven't been the only one.
I will leave you with this percentage; 95% white. If you like it that way then you need to look within yourself and ask why. Again in no way do I think you are deliberate (or anyone else) in your comments and your inability to address race. It's inbred from many years. I will pray your eyes will be opened. Please don't reply to this, I'm watching my time being stolen away by this and this isn't healthy on my part either, neither does it bring up thoughts that glorify God. That's why we each are in this business I would hope.
 
Re: debate

whatzthat wrote:
"You are pretty unhealthy"

Actually, outside of not enough diet and exercise, I'm doing pretty well for my age.


whatzthat wrote:
"You honestly don't know how you slam people, I haven't been the only one."

I have slammed your posts whatzthat. Your unsubstantiated posts. I'm sure you are taking it personally, but that is less a sign of my attack...and more a sign of how you are handling the debate. (that isn't a slam, it is an observation)

Again, you make this broad statement : "I haven't been the only one"....name names. site sources. Tossing out a general "everyone feels like me" kind of statement is ignorant. (again, not a slam...an observation- you can look up ignorant if you have any questions on that).


I'll be direct, abrasive, bold, and passionate in every single post where you bring me down with personal attacks or offend this profession with your claims of bigotry.


And once again, I'll sign my name to them all. How about you?


"I will leave you with this percentage; 95% white."

If that percentage concerns you, do a little grassroots approach and work with the listeners. That is the percentage that was sited...the listeners...not the music or the PDs.

"Again in no way do I think you are deliberate (or anyone else) in your comments and your inability to address race. It's inbred from many years."

Again, you accuse me and others of being bigots (dilerberate or not) and that is an offense. PROVE IT.


"Please don't reply to this"

Sorry, open forum.


"neither does it bring up thoughts that glorify God."

I am not having thoughts that dishonor God.


"That's why we each are in this business I would hope."

I would hope that is true. How about a re-read of your posts whatzthat...an objective re-read to see where you crossed the line from debate and discussion to personal attack. You can start with this one.

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

"I'll be direct, abrasive, bold, and passionate in every
> single post where you bring me down with personal attacks or
> offend this profession with your claims of bigotry."

I'm finding this pretty amusing. Perhaps it would be good to learn the difference between personal attacks and discussing a subject. You seem to not be able to tell the difference; the "victim" once more.

"I have slammed your posts whatzthat. Your unsubstantiated posts. I'm sure you are taking it personally, but that is less a sign of my attack...and more a sign of how you are handling the debate. (that isn't a slam, it is an observation)"
This is hilarious!!! You can't even see my face to see how I am handling anything. It seems very worthless to sit and argue with a person who veers off into personal issues.
 
Re: debate

read your posts whatzthat...every single one.

you yourself said your thoughts dishonored God (think you used the words glorify)

you have YET to substantiate your claims. because you CAN'T.

Elizabeth<P ID="signature">______________
RADIOELIZABETH
Pleasant, Passionate, Persuasive
www.radioelizabeth.com</P>
 
The specifics

On the 12/16/05 R&R Christian CHR chart, there are 5 rhythmic songs in the Top 30. One of those five is performed by a white artist (Mat Kearney). The following stations are playing none of those five songs: KHRI, KLFF, KNMI, KTSL, KZZQ, and WAYM. Granted, most of those got listed because their one rhythmic song, tobyMac's "Burn For You" is a recurrent. There were a couple of these stations playing other rhythmic songs outside the Top 30, but at most this amounted to two songs on one station.

I would have to agree, though with Elizabeth, in that the problem is likely not the stations-it's the listeners. Even the listener stats for ChargeRadio.com often show listeners dropping rhythmic songs rather than pop and rock songs.

Once C-CHR gets more listeners who grew up/are growing up with mainstream rhythmic music, especially hip-hop, things should improve. Hip-hop is also still struggling to gain acceptance as a valid form of music in the church-I happened to catch one church's service on TBN while flipping channels one day, and the pastor was taking his virtually all-black congregation to task for their failure to embrace hip-hop as a vehicle to spread the Gospel.

Some other areas that need to be addressed in this issue as well:

1) Artist signings - aside from Gotee and CMR, who really has any rhythmic artists in quantity on their roster? If secular labels can sell hip-hop, rap, and R&B, why can't the Christian labels?

2) Servicing - this in many ways is related to #1 as indie artists will always have it tougher than their label counterparts when it comes to getting airplay. The fact that their seems to be nowhere to service it to also doesn't help matters.

3) AC overload - how many markets have multiple Christian ACs, and are lucky to have any of them gain more than a 1.0 share? Have we overserved one demographic so much that we've really run everyone else off*?


* There has been quite a bit of recent discussion as well about how churches fail to meet the spiritual needs of men, especially when it comes to service opportunities and worship.<P ID="signature">______________
chargeradioweb.jpg
</P>
 
what???

this discussion has NOTHING to do with radio..my church is integrated as they all should be..i also worked for a gospel station that played some ccm..and i worked for a ccm station that played some gospel/ rap..<P ID="signature">______________
note to the NAB..satellite radio..its worth paying for!!</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom