Robot or Zombie

[RIN3GUY]

All of these threads have different names, however, half of them have a recurring theme. And I see that this has been true long before my arrival to this board.

At least 90-95% of stations fit into one of the two categories below:

ROBOT radio: These are the Jack, Bob, Joe, Mike stations. They are just a voice-tracked computer in a closet and operate on autopilot. And of course, no requests, no bones about it. However, their playlist is usually of significant size, as opposed to the Zombie stations.

ZOMBIE radio: These appear to be "alive," since they have actual humans/humanoids on the air, which is a vast improvement. However, there is no human element because no musical creativity or originality is involved. They know they need to sound different than the Robot stations, yet they play a mindless treadmill of just a few hundred songs that are repeated daily. And while requests often ARE solicited, both on air and online, they typically do NOT play them unless it is something already on their playlist, in which case you are going to hear it again soon enough anyway!

Tweedle-Dum & Tweedle-Dee...

 

[oldies76]

You got it RIN3GUY!! Radio is listener unfriendly, especialy with the requests. Why wait 3 hours til a requested song rotates to hear it (tuneout!), when an audience-friendly oriented station would play it in 30 minutes or less?

 

[OldNumber7]

You got it RIN3GUY!! Radio is listener unfriendly, especialy with the requests. Why wait 3 hours til a requested song rotates to hear it (tuneout!), when an audience-friendly oriented station would play it in 30 minutes or less?

Whether or not a station plays requests is a pointless discussion. Follow my logic:
1) Do you really care if a station plays someone else's request? Not really (except, I suppose, there is some self-validation if the requested song is actually one of your own favorites). But for all intents and purposes, the only request that really matters, is your own.
2) If a station is playing a song it says is a request, how do you know they aren't lying?
3) If a station played everything that gets requested, it would have to play dozens of songs an hour -- an impossibility. Therefore, even if the station intends to play requests, it is going to have to pick and choose among them. Many people won't hear what they requested -- how disappointing for them! Why disappoint people by enticing them to contribute and then not delivering?
4) If you are really dying to hear a specific tune, you can just go to youtube; it's probably there.
5) Radio stations know that music freaks who request out of the mainstream tunes aren't their typical listeners -- these are just folks who want a sense of ownership over the station and the sense of self-worth that comes from showing the world how cool their taste is. And for the masses who like mainstream music, Viola! The station is ALREADY playing it!
Q.E.D.

 

[allenv]

We music freaks make up a little more of the listenership than you may think and the truth lies somewhere in between..I have my sources for the unusual songs I like but I do think Joe Average gets tired of the same songs,likes some personality in his radio and can tell in a heartbeat when there in not a live human there..Joe Average pays closer attention that we give him credit for..It's more than just background noise for lots of folks and you do make someones day a little brighter when you say their name or play their song..Most listeners enjoy some kind of personal connection with a jock..Its just human nature..

 

[RIN3GUY]

Do you really care if a station plays someone else's request?

Is my dissatisfaction with the status quo really all that difficult to understand? Yes, requests have to be sifted and triaged, but it can be done and done very well. I love it when I know the requests of others are being played (not just my own) because it lets me know that my station is interested in playing what their listeners want to hear.

If playing requests doesn't work for a "Zombie" station, fine. But they should not PRETEND to accept requests just so they appear to be different from a "Robot" station.

"Out of the mainstream" tunes are one thing. But it should not be at all difficult to get a "request-taking" station to play a #1 hit by a former Beatle just one time, when they are already playing his lower-charting music daily. But that is what I experience with my local station here in Joplin MO. And no, it's not being played over at the "Robot" station either. Oh but they will play "Moondance," which charted at #92. Go figure.

I have known stations with all-request shows to be quite popular, particularly when aired over the lunch hour.

 

[OldNumber7]

Do you really care if a station plays someone else's request?

Is my dissatisfaction with the status quo really all that difficult to understand? Yes, requests have to be sifted and triaged, but it can be done and done very well. I love it when I know the requests of others are being played (not just my own) because it lets me know that my station is interested in playing what their listeners want to hear.

If playing requests doesn't work for a "Zombie" station, fine. But they should not PRETEND to accept requests just so they appear to be different from a "Robot" station.

"Out of the mainstream" tunes are one thing. But it should not be at all difficult to get a "request-taking" station to play a #1 hit by a former Beatle just one time, when they are already playing his lower-charting music daily. But that is what I experience with my local station here in Joplin MO. And no, it's not being played over at the "Robot" station either. Oh but they will play "Moondance," which charted at #92. Go figure.

I have known stations with all-request shows to be quite popular, particularly when aired over the lunch hour.

1. Again, if they pretend to play requests and say on the air "This is by request for Dan in Podunk," how do you know they're telling the truth? Of course, stations do make these up for the very reason you say you want them to -- it makes you think the station cares what their listeners want to hear. They do, of course, thanks to music testing they already know what their listeners want to hear.

2. Chart position does not always correspond to what records test well. Records got hyped to the top of the charts all the time, without real staying power. Some tunes, like Moondance, get discovered in other ways than normal chart runs and do have staying power. That's why stations test the records.

 

[RIN3GUY]

1. Friends with similar music tastes talk amongst each other, and if no one was ever getting in a request edgewise for weeks on end and yet a Zombie station kept claiming to be airing requests for bogus people, then that would become clearly apparent.

2. The use of term the "deep cuts" on this board is a tacit acknowledgment of the validity of original chart rankings. You can't tell me that anything Van Morrison ever did comes anywhere close to #1 songs by ex-Beatles. Any so-called "music testing" indicating such a thing is grossly flawed.

 

[oldies76]

Of course, stations do make these up for the very reason you say you want them to -- it makes you think the station cares what their listeners want to hear. They do, of course, thanks to music testing they already know what their listeners want to hear.

If true then, another reason why radio is so flawed these days! As to music testing, just because the same 500 songs air week after week, does not mean it's the favorites of everyone listening.

Everyone has a favorite, personal song and many of those songs and personal favorites are not being aired today! You know it and I know it.

 

[michael hagerty]

"Out of the mainstream" tunes are one thing. But it should not be at all difficult to get a "request-taking" station to play a #1 hit by a former Beatle just one time, when they are already playing his lower-charting music daily. But that is what I experience with my local station here in Joplin MO. And no, it's not being played over at the "Robot" station either. Oh but they will play "Moondance," which charted at #92. Go figure.

It's because chart numbers from 35 years ago are irrelevant. It's what the majority of the target audience has in common as songs they want to hear in 2013.

 

[michael hagerty]

1. Friends with similar music tastes talk amongst each other, and if no one was ever getting in a request edgewise for weeks on end and yet a Zombie station kept claiming to be airing requests for bogus people, then that would become clearly apparent.

2. The use of term the "deep cuts" on this board is a tacit acknowledgment of the validity of original chart rankings. You can't tell me that anything Van Morrison ever did comes anywhere close to #1 songs by ex-Beatles. Any so-called "music testing" indicating such a thing is grossly flawed.

1. That might be true in a very small market with very limited listening choices and friends who listen to little other than the station in question. In competitive markets with millions of people each with 6-9 stations that they listen to over the course of a week, less likely to happen.

2. Why would you expect a 45-year old person to know or care about the chart position of a record from when they were a toddler? What matters is whether they want to hear the song now.

 

[oldies76]

It's because chart numbers from 35 years ago are irrelevant. It's what the majority of the target audience has in common as songs they want to hear in 2013.

Irrelevant or not, if a person "remembers" a hit from the 70's and if they want to hear it on the radio, they should get that chance. Classic hits radio, should be playing just that.....Classic Hits.
All music from the 70's are classics.

 

[Biondi4Mayor]

Well I used to participate in 2 REAL request shows, one on Friday nights (featuring 50's-80's music) and
one on Saturday Nights (all 70's and REALLY GOOD STUFF).

I can say with 100% certainty, that they were legitimate request shows!

I enjoyed hearing other people's requests, it helped me remember songs and be introduced to others. It made
for great listening, allowed diverse tastes to be featured, and was out of the way for those darned ratings. Both
shows were cut within a few months of each other, and both stations' ratings are down as well.

And seriously, the research (conducted by Arbitron) showing that people (upwards of 90%) will sit through commercials, but will push the button at the immediate onset of a song they don't like, knowing more of their favorites are on the way...yeah ok! Naturally their research will show that. They've got to paint a pretty picture for the people who still buy ads on radio. That's like having research conducted by Ocean Spray telling everyone to drink Cranberry Juice.

 

[Biondi4Mayor]

1. Friends with similar music tastes talk amongst each other, and if no one was ever getting in a request edgewise for weeks on end and yet a Zombie station kept claiming to be airing requests for bogus people, then that would become clearly apparent.

2. The use of term the "deep cuts" on this board is a tacit acknowledgment of the validity of original chart rankings. You can't tell me that anything Van Morrison ever did comes anywhere close to #1 songs by ex-Beatles. Any so-called "music testing" indicating such a thing is grossly flawed.

1. That might be true in a very small market with very limited listening choices and friends who listen to little other than the station in question. In competitive markets with millions of people each with 6-9 stations that they listen to over the course of a week, less likely to happen.

2. Why would you expect a 45-year old person to know or care about the chart position of a record from when they were a toddler? What matters is whether they want to hear the song now.

If charts are so irrelevant, then you should really be testing THOUSANDS more songs, not just hits. You also might as well go deeper into album tracks from albums that were really popular.

Charts are relevant in a different way now, but still quite applicable.

 

[oldies76]

2. Why would you expect a 45-year old person to know or care about the chart position of a record from when they were a toddler? What matters is whether they want to hear the song now.

Agreed about the chart positions (unless they are into the Whitburn reference books, of course), but if they are familiar with hit music from 40 years ago, they should be able to hear them, today.

 

[michael hagerty]

1. Friends with similar music tastes talk amongst each other, and if no one was ever getting in a request edgewise for weeks on end and yet a Zombie station kept claiming to be airing requests for bogus people, then that would become clearly apparent.

2. The use of term the "deep cuts" on this board is a tacit acknowledgment of the validity of original chart rankings. You can't tell me that anything Van Morrison ever did comes anywhere close to #1 songs by ex-Beatles. Any so-called "music testing" indicating such a thing is grossly flawed.

1. That might be true in a very small market with very limited listening choices and friends who listen to little other than the station in question. In competitive markets with millions of people each with 6-9 stations that they listen to over the course of a week, less likely to happen.

2. Why would you expect a 45-year old person to know or care about the chart position of a record from when they were a toddler? What matters is whether they want to hear the song now.

If charts are so irrelevant, then you should really be tested THOUSANDS more songs, not just hits.

Which is why stations are playing album tracks. Which means they are testing them. Which ones? How many? I don't know. Neither do you.

"Moondance" was a popular LP cut for 8 years before Warners inexplicably issued it as a single in 1978. I could have told you (and would have) then that there was zero market (as singles sales were in free-fall if not for disco) for a 45 of that song. People bought the album and bought it years before.

You also might as well go deeper into album tracks from albums that were really popular.

There's your problem again. Why would someone born in 1968 know or care which album was really popular in 1972? They wouldn't (unless they're a chart freak). They just know whether they like it and want to hear it today.

Charts are relevant in a different way now, but still quite applicable.

And again, that opinion is supported by what? The charts we're all referring to were Billboard charts...which measured how many copies of albums and singles were sold on a wholesale basis by the record labels to distributors and stores at that time. They had no relation to how many of those albums and singles were actually purchased by consumers. To expect today's adults to care about a chart number that represents wholesale stock from when they were anywhere from in the womb to in elementary school more than they care about what they want to hear today is simply illogical.

 

[Biondi4Mayor]

Which is why stations are playing album tracks.

Hardly. Album tracks are more common in classic rock, not classic hits. When they are used it is with only "safe" acts like The Beatles, or a song of high noteriety.

Which means they are testing them. Which ones? How many? I don't know. Neither do you.

It still continues to baffle me as to why you have such faith in the system. There is no way all songs worthy of play are tested.

I could have told you (and would have) then that there was zero market (as singles sales were in free-fall if not for disco) for a 45 of that song. People bought the album and bought it years before.

Well thanks for asserting that :

There's your problem again. Why would someone born in 1968 know or care which album was really popular in 1972? They wouldn't (unless they're a chart freak). They just know whether they like it and want to hear it today.

And there's your problem. If no one cares whether or not a song was a hit then, the playing field has just been opened up. There's little excuse for the same rehash over and over.

To expect today's adults to care about a chart number that represents wholesale stock from when they were anywhere from in the womb to in elementary school more than they care about what they want to hear today is simply illogical.

You missed this when I brought this up in thread number one, and two, and however many other times. Charts are relevent in that they should provide programmers with a gerneral starting point of what to test, and what not to. I never said today's adults would or should care. It's not as if I'm suggesting a station cram chart statistics into dialog. It should be a general basis of programming.

 

[michael hagerty]

It's because chart numbers from 35 years ago are irrelevant. It's what the majority of the target audience has in common as songs they want to hear in 2013.

Irrelevant or not, if a person "remembers" a hit from the 70's and if they want to hear it on the radio, they should get that chance. Classic hits radio, should be playing just that.....Classic Hits.
All music from the 70's are classics.

And...if they don't remember it?

Let's just say the 45 year old that was born in 1968 didn't really start paying attention to pop music until he or she was....I dunno...11. That's 1979. Sure, they know the stuff that was played as oldies from earlier in the decade on Top 40 radio whgen they started listening in '79 and the stuff they've heard in movies and commercials and at parties since..."Love Train", "Joy To The World", "Crocodile Rock", "You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet", "Play That Funky Music", "Superstition"....that doesn't mean they know or care about "Right On The Tip Of My Tongue", "Motorcycle Mama", "Don't Expect Me To Be Your Friend", "You And Me Against The World" or "Having My Baby".

 

[michael hagerty]

Which means they are testing them. Which ones? How many? I don't know. Neither do you.

It still continues to baffle me as to why you have such faith in the system. There is no way all songs worthy of play are tested.

It's simple. It is in the station's best interests to find and play as many songs that test well as they can. They need new material as listeners age in, age out and as songs begin to show signs of burn.

I don't have Whitburn books anymore, but let's rough this out. Let's say that we're dealing with a 20-year span of music (just for the sake of simplicity)...1965 to 1985. If memory serves, songs that made the Top 20 (and I'm only doing this because you suggest the Billboard chart as a starting point) usually wound up being roughly 150 or so songs a year. So that's 3000 tracks.

Quarterly music testing of 600 tracks a shot gets you 2400 tracks. Sure, there's re-testing of some of what's being played to determine if there's lower, higher or flat appeal, but there's plenty of room to test others, and...as I said in the first paragraph, every reason (some of them very selfish) for the station to do so.

Now, you might say that 2400 isn't 3000...but remember (and I have to use KRTH as the example because it's everyone's favorite target despite being enormously successful)....KRTH is already playing 800. So there's 2200 tracks.

Do I think it's possible that all 3000 of those records that made the top 20 could be tested over the course of two years of quarterly music testing? Yes. It wouldn't be a stretch to do that mathematically. Do I know that they aren't? No.

Now, I could make assumptions. Do I expect them to test records that the audience isn't familiar with over and over and over? No. There's no reason to expect a listener born in 1968 who's never heard James Brown's "Get On The Good Foot" to become familiar with it after the test....unless there's movie, television or commercial exposure in the meantime. Then, absolutely you would test it again.

What baffles me is why it would surprise anyone that there is a very limited pool of songs from 35-45 years ago that the majority of listeners who are themselves only 45 can agree upon as favorites that they will absolutely stay tuned for. Frankly, it's a miracle that KRTH has found 800, and understanding human nature and the odds of agreement, I'd have to guess that to get 800, they're testing well into the thousands. 3,000 wouldn't surprise me at all.

 

[Biondi4Mayor]

And if you do quarterly testing, one group is not the same as the next. Their tastes will not be the same as the next group. Not representative at all.

3000 Top 20 songs (if that's remotely close), yet we already know that tons get thrown out automatically. Remember our Deodato argument? There's one that'll get thrown out for assumption. And they'll do that to others.

Also what you seem to be ruling out is the fact that many classic hits/oldies stations were quite popular from the 80's-90's. The playlists would have been skewed differently then, but younger listeners would still have been subject to the experience. So, no it is not entirely surprising that someone, as you say, born in 1968 could be familiar with a James Brown hit. As stations continue to hack up their audiences, this will no longer be the case, and eventually these songs will disapper for good.

 

[michael hagerty]

You missed this when I brought this up in thread number one, and two, and however many other times. Charts are relevent in that they should provide programmers with a gerneral starting point of what to test, and what not to. I never said today's adults would or should care. It's not as if I'm suggesting a station cram chart statistics into dialog. It should be a general basis of programming.

I didn't miss the point, so much as not respond to it. I should have. I'm sorry.

Here's the problem:

Radio stations back in the day didn't use Billboard as a general basis of programming.

The Billboard charts were viewed as exactly what they were...a look at what was moving on the wholesale level, influenceable by all sorts of external factors to Billboard's benefit, with the goal of selling more records on the wholesale level.

When Ron Jacobs and Tom Rounds formed Watermark and hired Casey Kasem to host American Top 40 in 1970, they needed a list of 40 songs every week. They chose Billboard. Billboard capitalized on that conferred legitimacy by issuing books and CDs and marketing themselves as a chart authority. But the fact of the matter is that, until Soundscan in the 1990s, Billboard's charts were meaningless outside the wholesale part of the business.

A #1 record in Billboard was the equivalent of saying that GM full-size trucks are selling like hotcakes because the factory built them and shipped them to dealers (overlooking the fact that they're sitting on the dealer lots like their tires have been nailed to the pavement and there's a 139 day supply when 60 is considered optimal). Unlike the record stores, the car dealers can't send the trucks back to the factory six or nine months later.

Radio stations back in the 60s and 70s called their local record stores, and got actual retail figures (yes, you had to trust that you weren't being lied to by a lazy store owner or one who'd been promised free stock by a label if he overstated their sales figures when you called). They took requests. Those were imperfect methods, but they ultimately were the stone-age version of today's research....determining what people in your market want to hear and acting on it. The only difference is today's testing is that it is far more accurate and measures the preferences of the passive listeners which vastly outnumber the actives who will pick up a phone, call a station or interact online.