Same old, Same old..

[davideduardo]

FYI, here is the headline from the POST:

By BRIAN GARRITY

August 10, 2007

The world's biggest music companies are lining up to acquire the music assets of Univision Communications, even as a growing payola controversy swirls around the Spanish-language media giant.

David, don't talk about integrity and research.

You have to bring up a two year old article about a long ago sold company that is in a different business?

That's sick.

 

[davideduardo]

I find it suspect when a broadcasting company ALSO owns a record label. What I find suspect is when an executive from said company claims that "research" dictates what makes onto charts. I believe there were "issues" concerning said broadcasting company and said record label. Give me a break.

That "record label" is owned by UniVERSAL.

And in case you don't know or don't remember, but CBS owned a record label for many many years.

And all significant music stations in major markets use audience research to determine music played; it is pretty much standard all over the world. Your efforts to the contrary are to no avail as people in the business know that stations do music and perceptual testing constantly, even in this economy.

http://www.davidgleason.com/Radio Research.htm further contrradicts your incorrect data with pictures of real music tests.

 

[Zeb Norris]

And all significant music stations in major markets use audience research to determine music played; it is pretty much standard all over the world. Your efforts to the contrary are to no avail as people in the business know that stations do music and perceptual testing constantly, even in this economy.

That may have been true at one time, but not today. I recently interviewed the former PD of a Boston station owned by one of the really big companies for a position in our company and was surprised to learn that the Boston station he had programmed had no research budget, and hadn't for some years. This is a station with legendary calls, and this was before the current economic meltdown.

As the big corporate owners look for savings everywhere research is being reduced or eliminated.

 

[davideduardo]

That may have been true at one time, but not today. I recently interviewed the former PD of a Boston station owned by one of the really big companies for a position in our company and was surprised to learn that the Boston station he had programmed had no research budget, and hadn't for some years. This is a station with legendary calls, and this was before the current economic meltdown.

As the big corporate owners look for savings everywhere research is being reduced or eliminated.

This may be a case at some stations and in some companies, but if we make and exception for the current recession, stations are generally doing some form of research. With the change in technologies, the on-site AMT is being reduced in importance, but plenty of companies are doing lots of research.

 

[returnofbongo]

I find this discussion fascinating: David Gleason, are you REALLY trying to tell me that "it's not Univision, it's UNIVERSAL?". You know, better than most, that Univision Music got in trouble BEFORE Universal bought the assets. And are you trying to say that it is irrelevant because it happened "SO LONG AGO?". August 07 is NOT that long ago.

You talk about research. There are no research budgets anymore. So long ago in 07, it has been alleged that YOUR company was involved in pay for play. Now, broadcast companies just play what is safe. Regardless, and again, don't talk about integrity and creativity in programming music charts, you have neither.

 

[davideduardo]

You talk about research. There are no research budgets anymore.Now, broadcast companies just play what is safe. Regardless, and again, don't talk about integrity and creativity in programming music charts, you have neither.

There are research budgets. Otherwise, how would Coleman, Harker, BA, Ramsey, Edison, etc., stay in business? Sure, some have cut the number of tests, and others have postponed, but research is the basis for what most stations do... including every one of the ones I have anything to do with.

Of course, by your terminology we can see you either don't know much about radio or are living well in the past. We don't program "music charts." Trade magazines, like R&R and Billboard (neither of which I receive) make "charts." Radio stations program music in proportion to how well it is liked; better liked songs get played more often and lesser ones less often. But there are no "charts" with song rankings because we don't publish weekly "Nifty 50" hit parades to put in record stores and haven't for three or four decades.

So, I don't make "charts" either. I spend most of my time finding out what listeners want to hear and then helping others to implement those findings.

 

[SuperRadioFan]

Ah David, I'm glad you brought up "charts". Don't know about Billboard's "charts" and I couldn't care less about them, but I do look at some of the weekly charts on the R&R website. [BTW one doesn't have to subscribe or 'receive' anymore to see them] These "charts" only rank the tracks according to the total number of plays a particular track gets from the 'reporting' stations in that particular format. Now I don't know what this has to do with how popular a song is, or how much its bought on iTunes, for example, the new track from the forthcoming U2 release "Get On Your Boots" debuted last week at number #1 on the AAA "chart" because almost 100% of the reporting stations added it and played it heavily during the reporting week. Why would they do that? After all, it's a brand new song (albeit a brand new U2 song) that listeners cannot be familiar with. So that may be the exception to the rule of listeners want to hear what they already like... How in hell can they like the song that much so quickly? Answer: it's a U2 song.

But getting back to the "charts" they are meaningless unless you can say that they do audience tests on a weekly basis to determine how often they should play a song. PS the U2 track during its first week was played a whopping 46 times by KINK-FM when the most plays is usually 22-26.

 

[davideduardo]

Now I don't know what this has to do with how popular a song is, or how much its bought on iTunes, for example, the new track from the forthcoming U2 release "Get On Your Boots" debuted last week at number #1 on the AAA "chart" because almost 100% of the reporting stations added it and played it heavily during the reporting week. Why would they do that? After all, it's a brand new song (albeit a brand new U2 song) that listeners cannot be familiar with. So that may be the exception to the rule of listeners want to hear what they already like... How in hell can they like the song that much so quickly? Answer: it's a U2 song.

Exactly. The general hierarchy for new adds in stations that play currents is first, well known big artists, second newer artists with several recent big hits and then unknown songs by unknown artists. U2, with a talk-up, is "familiarly unfamiliar" since the band is so well known it sells itself.

But getting back to the "charts" they are meaningless unless you can say that they do audience tests on a weekly basis to determine how often they should play a song. PS the U2 track during its first week was played a whopping 46 times by KINK-FM when the most plays is usually 22-26.

Many stations do, in fact, test frequently via callout or web based alternatives. Nearly nobody can afford... nor needs... weekly callout. But testing every two to three weeks for CHRs and comparable formats is helpful, and there is also guidance from syndicated callout... not market specific, but useful to see if something is moving up or stiffing. Since it takes over 100 plays to prepare a song for callout, the first two to three weeks on most stations is the familiarization time.

 

[returnofbongo]

Funny, I think there was a 3rd option. Perhaps, I know more than you do. The recent consolidation of radio programming has led to consolidation of duties, talent and yes, charts (less PDs with fewer decisions to make). Just because they are not public, doesn't mean that they don't exist. For example, listen to the programming, David, we can use Univision's "Recuerdo" or CBS's Jack or any number of "formats" all with internal charts. David, you seem, to me, like the kind of guy that likes to play with toys at work. I am going to say that you have a desktop full of toys on it. Go back to playing with them and let the grown ups discuss.

 

[davideduardo]

Funny, I think there was a 3rd option. Perhaps, I know more than you do. The recent consolidation of radio programming has led to consolidation of duties, talent and yes, charts

What is a "chart" in your world? It's not a term most of us use except to refer to the trade magazine lists... stations don't make charts, but the magazine (printed or web versions) charts are mostly derived from either MediaBase or BDS spins or from Soundscan sales data.

Just because they are not public, doesn't mean that they don't exist.

What "don't exist"... your imaginary charts? Most music work takes place inside Selector or Music Master, where we move 'em around for the proper rotations based on whatever form of listener feedback is available to us...

For example, listen to the programming, David, we can use Univision's "Recuerdo" or CBS's Jack or any number of "formats" all with internal charts.

Apples and Oranges.

Jack is a licensed format concept. Each station puts together the Jack that their market "needs." The Jack in LA is different from the one in Palm Springs, and, of course, different from the original ones in Canada. So the music on each can range from similar to very different depending on each market. I checked a few Jack licensees and each plays 900 to 1000 songs in a two-week period.

Recuerdo is a network, similar to what is the norm all through the rest of the Western Hemisphere. It uses multimarket research to optimize the music played. But, there sure is no "chart" there... MediaBase shows over 1000 different songs played in the last 15 days. None plays more than 5 times a week.

I still do not know what you mean by "charts."

David, you seem, to me, like the kind of guy that likes to play with toys at work.

Gee, to have toys on my desk, I would have to clear away the "charts" (whatever those are) that you say I have.

Wrong on both counts.

I am going to say that you have a desktop full of toys on it.

And you'd be wrong... of course, that brings me no surprise.

Go back to playing with them and let the grown ups discuss.

When you get back to the Dallas board, be sure to ask what station in #1 in just about every significant demo in the last 6 books in the market. It must be those secret charts... :

 

[scooty430]

What a load. Interesting to have david gleason talking about what is suspect and what people want to hear.

Why don't you argue the points rather than taking the opportunity for another ad hominem barrage.

You sir, represent all that is wrong with radio today.

Idem.

You make judgments about "suspect" charts

It's widely known, and recorded in many books and publications, that the record companies of the day used a variety of methods to influence the charts. The most common included free product for record stores in exchange for reporting sales of a song or liberal return policies for ordering specific product.

And that's just a start on how charts were liberally manipulated at the sales end... without getting into the motivations for airplay.

and claim to play what people want to hear.

There is no need for stations that consult with listeners (called "research") to "claim" anything. They are simply finding out what listeners wish to hear.

You don't know the first thing about what people want to hear.

Nor, with great precison, does any program director. That is why the listeners themselves are consulted so that the right songs are played.

It would cost Univision (or CC, or CBS or________) too much money to find out what we want to hear.

Actually, it costs a reasonable amount of money for stations in any significant market to find out the songs and the content that listeners wish us to provide them with. The return on such investments in research, when in the hands of a good PD, are vastly greater than the costs.

So you will keep boiling it down to a chart of your choosing. Is that REALLY better? I find THAT, suspect.

In my particular case, there are no Whitburns or charts of any kind to be selected or consulted. The only way to determine listener preferences is to ask the listeners.

In the case of others, with or without charts from the past, the issue is finding out what songs people still like today. That's a totally different issue.

There was certainly payola and all kinds of stuff going on then, and probably still going on today.

I remember a "Rockline" live call-in interview with the band Triumph sometime in the 80s. Bob Coburn was the host. During the show, a radio guy (PD or something) called up to basically say hello to their guitarist, Rick Emmett. The guy said something along the lines of, "How come you guys (Triumph) haven't visited our station recently? You're fair weather friends. (He was very much kidding around.)" Emmet replied with another joke, "Are you kidding! I think you guys owe us a couple of 'plays'." The way Emmet said it, it was clear that arrangements for plays were commonplace. Coburn and the PD went "whoa", very uncomfortably and awkwardly, and everyone realized Emmet had gone too far.

But bottom-line, that can only go so far. If a song was pretty popular, it had to have actual, real appeal. Promotion, exchanging plays for appearances, suitcases of cocaine, or (as we had a few years ago) free sneakers are not going to, by themselves, make a record top 10.

 

[andreajesus]

If a song was pretty popular, it had to have actual, real appeal. Promotion, exchanging plays for appearances, suitcases of cocaine, or (as we had a few years ago) free sneakers are not going to, by themselves, make a record top 10.

Boy, how times have changed - back in the 50's, it didn't even MATTER how APPEALING a song was - cocaine, gifts, sneakers, pay-for-play - that was what made a record popular...sad, isn't it??

Andrea

 

[adma]

If payola and chart manipulation is at issue here, it may be a question of what, exactly, was the "artificial" beneficiary of that system--some may say it was the "crap" that "nobody likes"; but others might (reluctantly or not) say otherwise, that if it wasn't for this rigged system, we wouldn't have the "rock era" and its mythology--inclusive of the radio listening experience--as we know and remember it today. Otherwise, the popularity continuum might have followed the Frankie Laine/Patti Page lineage instead.

And if one considers Frederic Dannen's "Hit Men" as a "Silent Spring" moment which busted the credibility of that racket, it may be worth considering what's happened to "popular music radio" since then--whether it's increasing niched fragmentation, or an increasing association with nutty ladies who can't get enough of "I Will Always Love You".

 

[JimmyJames]

That corruption hasn't been magically removed from the music or radio industry in modern times, however. I wouldn't base my faith in a chart.

 

[TonySantiago]

Boy, how times have changed - back in the 50's, it didn't even MATTER how APPEALING a song was - cocaine, gifts, sneakers, pay-for-play - that was what made a record popular...sad, isn't it??

Andrea

Unfortunately, times really haven't changed. :-[ Just a matter of not getting caught, plain and simple.

 

[andreajesus]

Boy, how times have changed - back in the 50's, it didn't even MATTER how APPEALING a song was - cocaine, gifts, sneakers, pay-for-play - that was what made a record popular...sad, isn't it??

Andrea

Unfortunately, times really haven't changed. :-[ Just a matter of not getting caught, plain and simple.

I suppose... :'(

Andrea

 

[adma]

The difference is: 50 years ago, they were supposedly wronged folk heroes persecuted by "the establishment". Today, as the Spitzer whistleblowing proved, they're just rubes and chumps and poor saps.

The corruption hasn't been removed, but the higher-functioning marketplace which used to give benefit of the doubt or groove to the transistor "anyway", has.

 

[videokilledtheradiostar]

If a song was pretty popular, it had to have actual, real appeal. Promotion, exchanging plays for appearances, suitcases of cocaine, or (as we had a few years ago) free sneakers are not going to, by themselves, make a record top 10.

Boy, how times have changed - back in the 50's, it didn't even MATTER how APPEALING a song was - cocaine, gifts, sneakers, pay-for-play - that was what made a record popular...sad, isn't it??

Andrea

I remember a former radio jock that worked for a record label back in the 70's between radio gigs and used to tuck a white envelope in the album sleeve of the record he was promoting. The PD of course loved it!

 

[lalumia]

there's no business like show business!!!

 

[Zeb Norris]

Here we go.

Look, I've been in radio (that's IN radio, not on radio chatboards) for 32 years. Never took a bribe. Never was the recipient of largess for an add.

Yes, I got offered a few wonky deals. Ddidn't cross the line.

Not saying there aren't dirty deals out there. But the idea that they are what drives the business is a bunch of hooey. Just cause radio doesn't do what YOU think it should doesn't mean it's dirty. That's just a lame, weak, rationalization.

Here's why; if a station does what the labels want, instead of what their listeners want, their ratings will suck and they will die.

Not all that hard to follow along with...