Normally, I wouldn't bother to reply, but..
DavidEduardo said:
SirRoxalot said:
Look, let's recognize research for what it is. Research is a way of determining what IS. Radio,
No, research is a way of finding out what people think righ at this moment. How much they would like to hear a particular song, or ho funny a morning show is. Research can not tell what people will do tomorrow anymore than radio and TV ratings can predict what they will tune in to tomorrow.
OK, explain to me how what I said is different from what you said. I said, that research tells us what IS, as in "what people think right at this moment." Please try to read and understand the post before you respond.
sadly, has fallen to the role of taste reflector, not taste maker. The over-researched music lists of today rely on data from small groups of people who have nothing better to do than be part of a focus group.
Music research is not done in focus groups.
Really? I guess you'd better explain that to most of the programmers and consultants that I've worked with and for. Perhaps that's not your method, but it sure is the method used by all of the major groups that have clusters in my market.
And radio has always reflected tastes, and very seldom created them. New kinds of music arrise, and radio picks up on them long after the initial fans have adopted it.
Gee, I guess you missed the "Underground" movement of the late '60s, the "Progressive Rock" movement of the '70s, the "Punk" movement of the '80s, the "Grunge" movement of the '90s, and the "Modern Rock" movement of today. Yes, there is an established fan base before a new type of music breaks into the mainstream. At one time, radio picked up on new sounds a LOT faster than programmers of today.
If somebody called you up and asked you to give up 2-3 hours of your time for a pittance, what would your response be? Busy people WON'T take the time. So we get groups skewed toward the unemployed, underemployed, or sedentary.
I went the other day, for fun, to a focus group for Mercedes owners. It was full of professionals who gave interesting opinions on what they liked and disliked about their favorite car. If it is possible to recruit Mercedes owners, I think radio listeners will not be that hard.
In any case, for radio the important thing is to research people who might be diary keepers (or PPM panelists). If a person will accept a diary and fill it out, they will usually also be párt of a perceptual project or an AMT or callout. And when the incentive is $75 to $150 dollars... free money... people respond easily.
SOME people respond easily. Music research usually doesn't pay nearly the amount you quoted.
Next, research tells us that people prefer to listen to music that they're already familiar with. Now THERE'S a revelation. It also tells us that they're SICK of the music they're familiar with. So, what do you do?
Research tells us nothing of the sort. Music research tells us which songs score high or low or in the middle. Programmers look at the songs, and make conclusions, like "ZZ Topp is not playable today" or "new songs get horrible scores in the first 4 weeks, and then only half of them ever go up.." And we decide how to use this information to make our staiton(s) better.
Gee, a song that scores HIGH would be a song that people prefer. A song that scores LOW would be a song that people are sick of, which makes "ZZ Top not playable today". Once again, the difference is in semantics, not concepts.
Well, back before everything was reduced to numbers on a spreadsheet, programmers used to use their EARS and take a chance on music that fit the format from unknown artists.
That is how new songs have always been selected. We listen to the song. We decide if the artist is a strong pull. If it is a new artist, have they had other recent hits? And we look at the trades or Mediabase and BDS to see who else is spinning the song. And we make decisions. Generally, we do not think of researching a song for about 4 weeks or 100 to 125 spins.
Gee, this is how I did it at my first Top 40 gig in 1964! Nothing has changed.
OK, explain to me how a NEW artist is supposed to have OTHER recent hits. By definition, a NEW artist would be one who hasn't had any hits. In the past, there were programmers who had a reputation for breaking new music, and other programmers followed them. Now, it's who's getting greased by the recording companies (outside of NY state and out of reach of Eliot Spitzer), and who's being added to "spin programs". The trades and MediaBase are skewed by the spin programs, and local programmers are under pressure to play "safe" records in order to avoid scrutiny by the "format" VP at corporate.
Was that music 20% of the playlist? No. Did it always remain on the playlist for an extended period of time? No. But, new sounds, and new artists did emerge from the "underground", and radio was much more vital and interesting than the homogenized crap that we have forced on us today.
The only difference today is that there are far more viable formats that play no currents at all. They are library based stations, like oldies, classic rock, Jack, etc., where currents are not supposed to be played. In other formats, depending on the demos, we play new songs... based on nothing more than our feel for the station. Most of the songs we try do not work, and we send them to that great stiff city in the sky.
There have always been formats that didn't play new music. There are less stations playing new music now than in the past. That's because corporate has dictated that programmers focus on 25-54, and the safe way to get those listeners is with music that they already know. That's one of the factors in making radio less entertaining that it was in the past.
It didn't. In the 60's, I called record stores, checked juke box plays and watched CashBox and Billboard. Today, we do call out and use Soundscan and check out R&R and Mediabase. Same thing, newer technologies.
And play the same thing that everybody else plays. You still base you selections on numbers, not aesthetics.
Because beancounters at corporate punished programmers who guessed wrong on songs.
Oh this is major B.S. The accounting folks generally don't even know our ratings. They are financial people, not expected to look at programming or new adds.
Beancounters are not just accountants. Beancounters are people that base everything on numbers, and try to reduce music from "art form" to "product".
Are playlists set by corporate? No, but you'd better be right if you deviate from "what tests well". It doesn't matter if you're involved in the market, and you know what's getting attention on the local "scene", and you might be ahead of the curve on a song. It better hit, and fast, or you're putting your career on the line. Not only that, but too many programmers are running selector on SEVERAL radio stations, in some cases with significantly different formats.
1. New songs are not tested until waaaaaaaaaay after they are added.
2. Things that do not test well reflect on the ratingss. If you bring the station down for any reason, you are in jeopardy.
Which means that you'd better be right if you deviate from "what tests well", or from "what SoundScan, R&R, and MediaBase say that everyone else is playing". What YOUR market responds well to be damned, do what everybody else is doing or "you are in jeopardy".
You might try reading some of the consulant and research company articles that are linked at All Access. You would benefit from understanding how ratings are done, how music and perceptual testing was done, and how currents don't play a part in many adult formats.
I have read more than enough articles, listened to more than enough consultants, and understand very well the methodology used by Arbitron. I understand that most adult formats don't even play current music by core artists who are still producing new music. Oddly, a lot of those albums sell well, even though they're not deemed fit for airplay.
I'm sure that you'll have a response to this overlong post, but I've found that I have little interest in your point of view, David. You post the same thing over and over - "Corporate is good. Big companies mean better radio. Consolidation is good." It reminds me of the movie Wall Street, with the mantra "Greed is good". Good for WHO? Not radio, not artists, not listeners, not sponsors who are priced out of the market, and not stockholders who get screwed when companies get taken private. Good for a few who manage to sell others a bill of goods, then cash out before the sh*t hits the fan. It's a short-term strategy that has damaged radio as a medium, and broadcasting as an industry.
