Research: Friend or Foe

[Tibbs4]

We've had a spirited discussion on the Nashville board about music tests, etc. Gotta a little serious and the discussion was over. In time for Buddy's birthday weekend. Now that we are beyond Buddy's birthday, I can get semi-serious again, right? Just a bit.

Whitfm made these comments:

"Very few folks on this board seem to understand the idea that we are not typical radio listeners by simple virtue of the fact that we are members of this forum. We're here because we have an interest in radio that's greater than the typical listener's interest. We listen differently; we notice more and pay attention to subtleties that the average listener is oblivious to. Therefore, to many of us, typical "researched" radio can become boring and predictable because we know how the gears turn. Don't knock the idea of research because it is proven to work time and again in every market in the U.S."


Whit makes a good case that "we" are special, more dedicated listeners on this board. I would say that is true (by dedication or profession). But, do we listen different, like whit suggests? Hmm! Probably. He also suggests that we not knock the idea of research (which includes a variety of options) because it works.

This may be where we all differ on thoughts. Where does "research" leave money on the table?

 

[onetake]

You deserve a fair answer but it would generate more space per comment than the managing editor would like. There is so much valid research from music hooks to audience perception of the brand to PPM's doing an excellent job of monitoring an audience that WILL change the dial if the jokes get long or the song isn't right.

If Proctor and Gamble still researches every product they have and continually evaluate customer perception and personal habits in using their wealth of products, it is valid.

The bias comes from the radio guy who doesn't want to see it, admit it, or adjust to it. Comments on this board prove many like to argue why they're right vs listen to the other possibility...wait..maybe that's why we have so many divorces among radio folks...ok, bad joke. But even good research is lost to a stubborn programmer who can't believe what he sees and his mind was made up before the project started.
Sort of like the way Sean Hannity does his show.

 

[fireworks]

I think research is a great tool. A consultant (notice I did not capitalize 'con'), aka, researcher, will tell you research is the only way to go. I believe it's okay for a programmer to balance research with instinct, whether it's 50/50, 60/40, or whatever. If one relies on just research, not only do listeners get cookie-cutter stations, but a PD brings nothing to the table. He becomes a puppet, which means anyone can do it, because they're listening to someone else. Besides, a consultant should only be there to say, "This is what's happening, this is the direction radio is headed, here's what our reserach says..." Then the PD, using his wisdom and radio experience, says, "Okay, I like this, but I don't like that, and here's why..." And there are some consultants who insist they do everything their way, and if the station tanks, they still blame the PD.

 

[Tibbs4]

Fireworks ~ friendly warning sir. We want ya to say on here. Let that go.

On the other side of things. Can anyone like our mentor David E. suggest a thought on how research can actually "cost" business and revenues. My theory, going on in my simple mind, is that while research and playlists are central and necessary, the methods are subject to sometimes "stacking the deck" and by
playing it SO SAFE, you're possibly loosing shares and/or potential revenues, etc.

In the world of competition from other sources and the ability of listeners to "play what they want" online, how does the decades old tried and true system of programming radio stay vibrant and cutting edge?

Hope this makes sense...let the, uh, Fireworks begin??? ;D

 

[fireworks]

I was tempted to bow out here, but I think I can add a little to your post, Tibbs.

The "play what we want" mentality plays upon the people who are defiant by nature. It's a shame that we have become that shallow, but that's what the world is coming to. I thought it was going to backfire on them, but seems to be doing fairly well.

I understand the "play it safe" mentality, too. But you can be "too safe", as you suggested, and be just as dangerous on either side of the line. Finding that right spot is where a PD can shine. Will his boss allow him that flexability? Probably not.

 

[Tibbs4]

It's interesting that this post is suddenly so quiet. Fireworks, you make total sense and I think most of the alert people in radio know that it's at a crucial tipping point of improving or falling into the forgotten land of
oblivion. The world was once flat until someone realized it was round. Listeners have been through at least
30 years of the same ole logic. It's time for changes. But, will it be the innovative media of radio or the listeners that will take action.

 

[Tom Wells]

Presuming we are considering music radio.....
Research is a great tool to find out the least common denominator, what will satisfy non-critical, or "not too engaged" listeners,
because that's the category most listeners fall into.
Listeners who spend more time with, or attention to, the product will be those who find fault, or find the result too "safe".

This is the divide that finds some in the 400 songs playlist camp, while others can't ever hear enough variety or
obscure music.

It's also the same divide between commodities and art. Money can be made investing in either,
but it's hard to get excited about commodiites, even while their return is much more predictable than art.

Investing in art gives you something you can enjoy and share with others even if it never pays its own way.
If you don't personally enjoy art, you're not too likely to invest in it, or enjoy sharing it with others.

So, research is a friend to business, as it will maximize revenues.
Individuals ( persons ) decide they either do or don't like the product defined by the research.

The most enjoyable radio I've ever heard had somewhere, either an owner or PD who brought their own tastes
into the air product, or were free-form stations. But that's because I listen too much and too closely, and have wide tastes.

 

[fireworks]

So, research is a friend to business, as it will maximize revenues.

There have been discussions in other posts that ratings don't have to be high to provide strong revenue. When Nashville wonders why we don't have an Oldies station, WCBS is brought up as being an example of how it could be done and with above average AQH. Then someone posts that while the ratings are good, revenue is not. On the other side of the coin, some Nashville stations are said to make more money with formats that don't generate a large audience, and that being the reason formats stay the same instead of going up against a format that does well, i.e., WJXA being the only AC station in the Nashville market. But no one takes them on, according to others on the board who imply that the stations who could benefit in the ratings game don't take the chance because their sales are... well, sufficient, or a better term might be "safe".

 

[Tibbs4]

To me, "safe" is often complacent. This doesn't mean you have a free for all with the music, it just means you "bend the edges" a little bit. Look at some of the playlists (like WCBS or WOMC) and it's a wider variety of music than people probably think. I just wonder how much time and re.....h is spent on "If we did this differently" we'd increase revenues by 5% or listenership/ratings by various amounts.

Speaking of ratings - anybody heard any Nashville stations tightening or tweaking for PPM?

 

[TheBigA]

The real answer has to do with the goal of the station, and not all stations want the same thing. The second variable is the market and the competition. The third is the information you get from the various consultants. Not all consultants say the same thing or use the same tools. Then you get into interpretting the information, and mixing it with the competition and the station goals. Then afterwards, you go through the assessment as to whether the station has achieved the goals. That's the scientific approach.

 

[radiorob2.0]

Research is a barometer not a thermometer, those who use it as the latter fail. This is especially true when you lead the research to tell you what you want to believe.

 

[TheBigA]

That's partly why you hire someone outside the station to do your research. It also makes that person easier to replace.

 

[davideduardo]

On the other side of things. Can anyone like our mentor David E. suggest a thought on how research can actually "cost" business and revenues. My theory, going on in my simple mind, is that while research and playlists are central and necessary, the methods are subject to sometimes "stacking the deck" and by
playing it SO SAFE, you're possibly loosing shares and/or potential revenues, etc.

I have seen many cases where badly done research (wrong recruit specifications or bad sample design) or bad implementation of the results has hurt a station.

Give a fine tool set to a master carpenter, and that person will work even better, but in the hands of an unskilled person you will just end up wasting wood.

Research is a tool, and it needs to be well done. And well implemented. Generally, where "too much research" is named for a station sounding bad or boring or as the reason for radio's different issues, what is really the problem is a bad programmer... and that often indicates a bad manager, too.

 

[davideduardo]

Research is a great tool to find out the least common denominator,

Research defines the music that does not cost you listeners every time it is played, and helps determine the songs to play the most because all listners are passionate about them.

what will satisfy non-critical, or "not too engaged" listeners,

Engaged listeners are the most critical of songs they don't like, because they listen more time and hear more bad songs if a station plays them.

because that's the category most listeners fall into.

Radio users generally have 4 to 6 stations they use regularly, and things like mood and situation are determining factors. But if the choice of the moment does not satisfy, they have alternatives.

Listeners who spend more time with, or attention to, the product will be those who find fault, or find the result too "safe".

You know this how? How many tens of thousands of listeners have you consulted personally about specific songs, DJs, stations, etc?

This is the divide that finds some in the 400 songs playlist camp, while others can't ever hear enough variety or obscure music.

400 is about 300 too many for a CHR, and a couple of hundred too few for country, classic hits and urban AC. It is about right for many AC variants... and that comes from asking listeners.... if the consensus is that there are 80 CHR hits at any time, you play 80 songs.

In the 60's, top 40 stations sometimes got 30 shares with 40 songs, and only 40 songs, over and over. They were the right songs.

 

[Tibbs4]

In the mid 80's I know of a Top 40 that got a 20+ with about 35 in near constant rotation. It was a short term magic moment when all the music, competition and stars lined up, and by 1987 it was a disaster and I dunno how many tunes were on the list by then and neither did many listeners.

Gotta be tight, fun and downright dynamic.

Oh, wait. That was then. Now. Uh? Predictable and single digitz.

 

[Tom Wells]

Listeners who spend more time with, or attention to, the product will be those who find fault, or find the result too "safe".

You know this how? How many tens of thousands of listeners have you consulted personally about specific songs, DJs, stations, etc?

When I discuss the issue with those who have an interest, (and these would be people with more than an average interest in music)
that is a consensus I have found over 35 years. Perhaps 100-200 people in that time.

Those who do not have any special affinity for music are satisfied with radio's musical choices and playlists.

I very well understand that research is not directed toward "non-standard" listeners.

Back to Nashville, WSM does a fine job of pulling out songs I've never heard and makes me very happy with their choices.
Far from tuning away, I am often transfixed, and can't wait to hear "new", old gems as they are presented.

 

[davideduardo]

When I discuss the issue with those who have an interest, (and these would be people with more than an average interest in music)
that is a consensus I have found over 35 years. Perhaps 100-200 people in that time. [/quote]

So that is a range of 3 to 6 people a year. That would be a fraction of what I worked on just yesterday alone.

The acceptance of individual songs changes over time... days and weeks for current hits, months and years for recurrents and new gold, and over-a-year ranges for library cuts. So only your last 2 or 3 conversations were relevand.

n = 3 is anecdotal, not empirical. It's the opinion of your acquaintences, who may share lifestyle elements with you, including eclectic musical preferences. It's certainly not a sample or cross section of the population.

Those who do not have any special affinity for music are satisfied with radio's musical choices and playlists.

Whatever "special affinity" may mean, most people look to the radio or to online streams as a way of getting a pleasing musical experience to accompany daily chores, work and leisure time. Nothing deeper.

Back to Nashville, WSM does a fine job of pulling out songs I've never heard and makes me very happy with their choices.

Of course, WSM is not in the top 20 stations 25-54 in Nashville, where the leading data analyst says there are 16 "viable" AM or FM stations... so 4 non-viable facilities beat them in sales demos! Last year, they were 24th in billings, with estimated revenues of 1/30th that of the top station. That ecelectic playlist sure works swell.

 

[Tom Wells]

Whatever "special affinity" may mean, most people look to the radio or to online streams as a way of getting a pleasing musical experience to accompany daily chores, work and leisure time. Nothing deeper.

Exactly what I was trying to say. I'm agreeing. The people I have such discussions with collect music, are often audiophiles,
play in bands, made "tapes" at a furious pace back in the 70s and 80s, went to lots of shows by bands that were mostly ingnored by commercial radio, and were not "most" people.
They made tapes because they weren't served by radio then or now. Excepting "college" radio.

Of course, WSM is not in the top 20 stations 25-54 in Nashville, where the leading data analyst says there are 16 "viable" AM or FM stations... so 4 non-viable facilities beat them in sales demos! Last year, they were 24th in billings, with estimated revenues of 1/30th that of the top station. That ecelectic playlist sure works swell.

It sure works for me. That's the point I'm making regarding art vs. business. Reseach is not about serving those who have a special affinity for music, but those who fit into the least common denominator. Naturally, WSM IS the only Nashville station I can hear on radio, now that
WLAC is more or less buried.

I know well enough that I'm not anything like the average listener or consumer.
This was the first of many reasons I decided long ago not to get into radio.

I make many choices most people wouldn't understand for reasons that wouldn't even matter to them.

Research shows that minivans are great and popular. But when one comes up in the line for me as a taxi at the airport, I would rather step out of line and wait all over again in line than set foot in a minivan. They are too much like "enforced ugliness'.
I have my standards and peronal integrity, and remain true to them.

Never said research is bad, but it's not about anything other than the $$$.

 

[loves radio 2]

Whatever "special affinity" may mean, most people look to the radio or to online streams as a way of getting a pleasing musical experience to accompany daily chores, work and leisure time. Nothing deeper.

Exactly what I was trying to say. I'm agreeing. The people I have such discussions with collect music, are often audiophiles,
play in bands, made "tapes" at a furious pace back in the 70s and 80s, went to lots of shows by bands that were mostly ingnored by commercial radio, and were not "most" people.
They made tapes because they weren't served by radio then or now. Excepting "college" radio.

Of course, WSM is not in the top 20 stations 25-54 in Nashville, where the leading data analyst says there are 16 "viable" AM or FM stations... so 4 non-viable facilities beat them in sales demos! Last year, they were 24th in billings, with estimated revenues of 1/30th that of the top station. That ecelectic playlist sure works swell.

It sure works for me. That's the point I'm making regarding art vs. business. Reseach is not about serving those who have a special affinity for music, but those who fit into the least common denominator. Naturally, WSM IS the only Nashville station I can hear on radio, now that
WLAC is more or less buried.

I know well enough that I'm not anything like the average listener or consumer.
This was the first of many reasons I decided long ago not to get into radio.

I make many choices most people wouldn't understand for reasons that wouldn't even matter to them.

Research shows that minivans are great and popular. But when one comes up in the line for me as a taxi at the airport, I would rather step out of line and wait all over again in line than set foot in a minivan. They are too much like "enforced ugliness'.
I have my standards and peronal integrity, and remain true to them.

Never said research is bad, but it's not about anything other than the $$$.

WLAC is more or less buried? Please explain.

 

[Tom Wells]

WLAC used to boom into the Chicago area at night years ago, before all the daytimers went 24.
Now, its signal just doesn't seem to cut through the noise and pile up of signals.