Radio Discussions dialogue within forums

[CTListener]

I'm sure Cliff Dumas and his partners have every intent to run those stations professionally and make money, and you probably won't see any major eclecticism from their playlists, but they're experienced enough to run them well, yet flexible enough as a private, small operator to be hyper-local, and some of that does affect programming and playlists. No doubt, the iHeart style of programming works for a lot of people. But there's no "right way" to program per se, of course there's best practices - but presentation and playlist can be variable by market size, region and even just what one finds creatively satisfying as a smaller owner, within the boundaries of what your audience will tolerate. It's a business. There's also an art to it. And there's as many different degrees of that as there are owners.

Personally, I appreciate the people trying to do it and putting their unique spin on it. Sometimes it works, other times not. But I appreciate that some radio people (and non radio people) are taking an interest in some of these smaller operations. I prefer Saga's stations to most of iHeart and Audacy. They don't run exclusively niche formats. But they do, where it makes sense, run some good Triple A outlets, and have shown a willingness to try other things. The lack of debt and not being over extended. Same with Bonneville, again, not a "niche" company but a quality operation, on air and behind the scenes.

I wouldn't necessarily assume all future sales to non-comm have to be religious operators. Only certain ones, like EMF, have national appeal and that level of ambition. And they're going to reach saturation. So, there is always the possibility that a good major market facility (take for example a recent discussion on these boards of KRTH) could go to, say KCRW to do a 24/7 music format. Or KCSN could expand and divest the two 88.5 frequencies. Point being, I think some non-comm secular operators may well pick up some of these FMs.

Not if the advertising outlook continues to be as sour as it's been for the past decade, and there's little sign that it's going to improve. Religion pays for itself. EMF stations are as close to a turnkey operation as there is in broadcasting. It takes a lot of work (and workers) to squeeze enough advertising to support some niche or "boundary pushing" mainstream format.

I'm curious what there is about Saga's approach to radio that's more appealing than the big bad corporates'. The Saga station I'm most familiar with is WAQY Springfield, a classic rocker that's about as generic and slow to adjust as there is. It's still stuck in the '70s and '80s, playing very few '90s titles, and nothing you won't hear on an Audacy or iHeart classic rocker. In fact, all three classic rock stations I listened to back in Connecticut before my move north in early 2022 are interchangeable, and none is owned by a mega-chain. WPLR New Haven (Connoisseur), WDRC-FM Hartford (Red Wolf) and WAQY -- pretty much the same 300 or so titles that most classic rockers everywhere else play. The presentation is generic, too. So what's Saga doing differently where you are, and in which formats?

 

[davideduardo]

That is interesting it was that few back then! Playlists since expanded, but contracted more and more in recent years. It seems in general playlists are very narrow and tailored (moreso than decades prior) to the success of some and not of others

Song lists or "playlists" have not either expanded or gotten smaller. What happens is that stations adjust the ratios of currents to recurrents and gold based on how good the currents are. Sometimes the current list is reduced when there is not a lot of really "power" material.

 

[R.D.P.]

I don’t see an expansion and contraction issue with radio. I see it with record companies. So if there are fewer good and playable currents in a format, stations play less currents and mor gold. Stations simply react to listener likes and available music.

Amen! In my case, I have to play what I can get and believe will appeal to the listeners the most. Since playing more of the older songs have mass appeal, that's what I play the most. The newer tunes are heard but since it's so hard to get them, I'm not able to add them as fast, as everyone else. Sorry about that.

Dan <><​

 

[tall_guy1]

But WHO are they researching? Once again, you are twisting what I mean. I NEVER said stations should only "listen to me." But if your research only includes such a small sample of the audience, you aren't going to get fair representation of listenership.

Also, if radio is improving, why are the stop sets SO LONG??? Again, I know radio needs ads to make revenue, but there also needs to be a balance.


You proved my point with this comment. Why would people be faithful to mainstream radio when you have options such as this? Radio needs to realize there is more competition for its audience and they if don't change, it will fall by the wayside. But I guess I don't know what I am speaking of.

If I took the test, my scores would probably tilt the scale, as I would probably not score as high on some songs I think (even if good) are played too much, but most likely welcome some of the "what if" titles.

 

[davideduardo]

If I took the test, my scores would probably tilt the scale, as I would probably not score as high on some songs I think (even if good) are played too much, but most likely welcome some of the "what if" titles.

One person in a test of 100 will not change anything.

Further, if one or two people are significantly outside the normal range of scores on many of the songs, we call the person an "outlier" who we can't please while keeping all the others happy. So we tale that person out of the sample.

 

[tall_guy1]

One person in a test of 100 will not change anything.

Further, if one or two people are significantly outside the normal range of scores on many of the songs, we call the person an "outlier" who we can't please while keeping all the others happy. So we tale that person out of the sample.

I would be honest though. There are some songs like Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now and some older songs I still enjoy, but others I might tire of more than others so I have a feeling I would be in that category.

 

[exdjted]

I realize programmers and station owners have an obligation to TRY to make everyone (or most) listeners happy. But isn't one of the ways of doing that LISTENING to ALL of your audience?

I've been following this thread, and I want to respond to the OP regarding this statement. Please understand, I want you to enjoy being here and hope you continue to add your voice to the discourse.

You're looking at this from the standpoint of the LISTENER. Try looking at this from a management point-of-view. The one who has to sell the product to the ADVERTISERS. They're the people who pay our bills, not the listener per se. Do you know why Country, AC, Classic Hits and Classic Rock are so prevalent? Because they're proven consistently year after year after year to keep listeners that turn into customers that advertisers are trying to get through their doors. In all my years in Radio, I never once had a listener offer me even $1 to help pay royalties, FCC fees, taxes, electricity, payroll, etc.. Bob's Hardware does. Fred's Motors does.

I have to worry about what the advertiser will buy, what the majority of listeners will tune into, and I can't get bogged down by the 5% who will NEVER tune in because I don't play what they want to hear. That 5% didn't listen to me to discover their new favorite artist. That came from somewhere else, like social media or streaming. Chances are they also get their news that way, as well as shop that way. My revenue, at least the bulk of it, traditionally comes from right here in my town. I know some will argue that we're not cultivating the next generation of listeners. That may be true, to an extent, but we still have to cater to what we have at this point in time. Terrestrial Radio may not be here in 50 years, but I most definitely won't.

Look at the countless stations over the years who have made format changes to ALT or Rock or whatever with great fanfare by announcing it in all of the trades, only to quietly change formats over a weekend down the road when nobody buys enough ads to keep the lights on. It's great to have principles, but the IRS, the FCC, the banks, the power company and employees don't see principles as currency.

When it comes to music testing, and what eventually winds up on the air, it's simple: The majority wins. We can't please every listener. You will never get 100% consensus on every song. I realize it's frustrating that you may not have a station in your area that plays exactly what you want to hear. Hell, I'm 60 and I listen to Slipknot, Seether and Disturbed. There's not a station near me that plays anything like that. We're lousy with Country, AC, Classic Hits and Classic Rock. Whoops! That's the point.

Even if I bought a station tomorrow, and had enough money to play only what I want to hear, I would truthfully still put something on that the advertisers and the listeners with the disposable income want to hear, because even the wealthiest Radio station owner gets tired of losing money.

Don't take things personally. This is the first time that YOU have asked these questions or made these statements, but in the history of this discussion board, these same viewpoints and questions have been posed and asked hundreds, if not thousands of times, sometimes by the same few members ad infinitum. Ask away, and comment, and stick to your guns. Just like a music test, there will never be 100% agreement on ANY topic here, except for all of us wishing Frank Berry good health!

 

[tall_guy1]

Nobody wants to be considered the lowest common denominator, but the cold hard truth is that's what the average listener to a mainstream musical format represents. Successful stations play songs that turn the fewest listeners AWAY from the station, which, amazingly, is also the way to maximize the station's total listenership.

That might be some of the problem, though. You will only get passive listening that way, while younger people turn away from radio and you will not get anyone who thinks "This is good." I hear crickets from the listener half of this website on how much they love some of their favorite stations as of late (only the radio staff half.) The only thing I have heard positive is of Sirius XM.

 

[radiofan2023]

Yes, but it is obvious to some listeners who the band geek is trying to fit in, both to the "football fans" and fellow "band people."

This is feeling oddly specific...

Joke’s on you, tall_guy played basketball

 

[TheBigA]

That might be some of the problem, though. You will only get passive listening that way, while younger people turn away from radio and you will not get anyone who thinks "This is good." I hear crickets from the listener half of this website on how much they love some of their favorite stations as of late (only the radio staff half.) The only thing I have heard positive is of Sirius XM.

From an advertiser point of view, passive listening counts as much as active listening. The listeners to this site mainly want to hear certain music. That's what the conversation with them is about. They want to hear their favorite songs or artists. And radio stations are not free music distribution services. So saying people like the music is mainly important to the musicians, not the radio station. If broadcast radio could charge a subscription fee, it would sound more like Sirius.

 

[tall_guy1]

From an advertiser point of view, passive listening counts as much as active listening. The listeners to this site mainly want to hear certain music. And radio stations are not free music distribution services. So saying people like the music is mainly important to the musicians, not the radio station. If broadcast radio could charge a subscription fee, it would sound more like Sirius.

I take back one comment about hits 1 I made....it is good they do things their way. I went in a business and they had on our local CHR and the employees commented how they play the same songs hour after hour and how crazy it drives them. Here on the site, there probably are more people who take an active listening approach like that too and care about the actual music.

 

[TheBigA]

Here on the site, there probably are more people who take an active listening approach like that too and care about the actual music.

There are other stations that aren't advertiser based, and that's typically where you'll hear radio for active listening. The commercial music stations are based mainly on short-term listening.

Stations like WXPN in Philadelphia. We've talked a lot about KEXP in Seattle, or KCRW in LA. These are stations that are paid for by listener memberships, and not advertisers. Advertisers are not usually music lovers. They want listeners to shop their stores or buy their products. There has been a lot of discussion that we need more stations based around listeners. The problem is getting those listeners to subscribe.

 

[tall_guy1]

pumpin73 said after consolidation radio cared less and less about it's listeners. That is a complete lie. The fact these stock traded corporations exist required excessive research to prove radio was reaching the targeted audience, maximizing listening times and such. At no point in time has radio been as extensively researched as it is today. You keep your job delivering the listener and achieving the best case scenario for the sales department to command those agency buys. And the stockholders demand that.

I doubt any listener agrees with what you say. If you were to go up to a stranger and ask about the local radio stations in town, they would probably say they are not thrilled, whereas probably when many of you started radio, they might have said something about their favorite stations. That is what he means by catering to listeners, not just researching ways they do not "tune out."

 

[TheBigA]

If you were to go up to a stranger and ask about the local radio stations in town, they would probably say they are not thrilled,

There's a lot of negativity right now. People say negative things about a lot of things. What I watch is their behavior. That's more important than what they say. Actions speak louder than words. Nielsen tracks what they do and how they behave, not what they say.

 

[tall_guy1]

There's a lot of negativity right now. People say negative things about a lot of things. What I watch is their behavior. That's more important than what they say. Actions speak louder than words. Nielsen tracks what they do and how they behave, not what they say.

I wouldn't say that's listener friendly, but just a way to to cling on to the listeners they have tuned in more than what pumpkin is talking about, and could be why some leave radio for streaming or elsewhere (especially younger demos). It is kind of like how a lot of cable TV stations these days show TV shows in "bulk" like hours on end of The Office and Friends, and while it might not cause tune out, a lot leave it for streaming.

 

[TheBigA]

I wouldn't say that's listener friendly, but just a way to to cling on to the listeners they have tuned in more than what pumpkin is talking about, and could be why some leave radio for streaming or elsewhere (especially younger demos).

You're talking hypotheticals here. Radio listenership doesn't stay still. It changes with every survey. At the same time, radio stations are actively promoting their own streaming stations. So FM stations know they have to transition their audience to other devices, and create content that goes beyond real time radio. This is where podcasts come in. All of this is available on platforms that exist everywhere. If listeners want strictly a music service, those are available, and they should expect to pay for the music they love, in order to support those musicians, just as people 30 years ago used to buy CDs or cassettes.

 

[tall_guy1]

You're talking hypotheticals here. Radio listenership doesn't stay still. It changes with every survey. At the same time, radio stations are actively promoting their own streaming stations. So FM stations know they have to transition their audience to other devices, and create content that goes beyond real time radio. This is where podcasts come in. All of this is available on platforms that exist everywhere. If listeners want strictly a music service, those are available, and they should expect to pay for the music they love, in order to support those musicians, just as people 30 years ago used to buy CDs or cassettes.

A lot of those (like the Audacy app) are seldom used though.

 

[Daryl Lynn L.A.]

A lot of those (like the Audacy app) are seldom used though.

To be more specific, what kind of music do you like ? Could you give an example of a few of your favorite artists?
Based on what you previously said, I think that you like 70's hits than lean towards a pop-folk side. Artists like
Harry Chapin, Cat Stevens, The Carpenters, Maureen McGovern, etc. And, Starship from the 80's. (Nothing's Gonna Stop Us) Is that correct?

What is commercial radio not providing for you, and what do you think that commercial radio should provide?

If you can give us some examples, I think it would be very helpful. Thank you, from Daryl.

 

[tall_guy1]

To be more specific, what kind of music do you like ? Could you give an example of a few of your favorite artists?
Based on what you previously said, I think that you like 70's hits than lean towards a pop-folk side. Artists like
Harry Chapin, Cat Stevens, The Carpenters, Maureen McGovern, etc. And, Starship from the 80's. (Nothing's Gonna Stop Us) Is that correct?

What is commercial radio not providing for you, and what do you think that commercial radio should provide?

If you can give us some examples, I think it would be very helpful. Thank you, from Daryl.

I like those, but also like EDM, eurodance and some soft rock. I listen to Kiesza quite a bit, which is a Canadian dance artist. Soft AC artists are always relaxing as well. Starship you cannot go wrong with. 70s/80s pop I like as well. I think I said a lot, but don't like the "Groundhog Day" aspect of radio. At least where I live it is worse than ever. Flowers has played for about 8 months every hour and stuff like Jack FM never varies much after years of listening. I am trying country, but am taking time to get into it. I am only dipping my toes into streaming with Youtube music , as a lot of my life I have used radio for music. My ideas don't seem to go anywhere, as apparently the songs they research and pass are the only possible songs that could ever be played 24/7/365.

 

[b-turner]

tall guy 1 - it seems you are a music explorer like me. Most all radio stations are after consensus within the targeted age group. For that radio is succeeding in doing that and they do listen and enjoy what they hear or they wouldn't listen. Nothing is perfect but it matters less what people say and more about what they do. I was at a client for a remote yesterday and in an hour we pulled over 300 listeners out of a county of 40,000 registering to win a $100 bill. The station plays the researched and proven songs, is run as if it's a major market station and is mostly voice-tracked but listeners say we play everything and they love us and our jocks. Yes, we still play Taylor and Miley as an Adult Contemporary and we play classic hits mixed in. The station amazes me because folks from high school through getting around with a walker listen. Never seen that before.