Songs that didn't get much radio airplay

[davideduardo]

Re: 60's stuff is mostly dead and crispy.

> > If we were to take "You Belong To Me" and test it among 25
>
> > to 49 year olds (the target demo for an Oldies station) it
>
>
> That's your problem right there.
>
> Why would your average 25-year-old -- if he has
> standard tastes for the music of his teen
> years, per Dave's definition -- be in the
> target demo for an oldies station. What oldies
> frame of reference does he have?
> Hell... he was born after John Lennon died!

Which means that oldies has to move demographically.

An AC station that appeals to 35-54, like KOST in LA, refreshes constantly, shedding the oldest stuff and adding newer styff, including artists and genres it did not play 2, 3 or 5 years ago. In other words, as some people move out the back door, new ones are invited int he front one. And the station stays faithful to its demo.

Oldies stations have watched thier listeners mature and move into the unsalable demos in thier majority. Instead of saying, "oldies is for 35-54 year olds and consists of the music that they grew up on and enjoyed" they say, "we are gooing to beat "Brown Eyed Girl" and "Love Child" to death." So they die.
>
> I can't even imagine an 25-year-old being
> interested in a 25-years-ago format.

That is because you refuse to recognize that what oldeis radio should have done is followed its demo, not its same listeners.
>
> If every station programs for 18 or 25 to
> 49, you have a vast underserved market.

The ad buys are all for 18-49 or 25-54. There is an unserved group of listeners, but not an unserved group of advertisers.

> Considering that the tail end of the baby
> boom turns 42 this year, you have 7 years
> to get your sh together before the entire
> boom generation is ignored.

If advertisers don't care or want that group (and they do not), radio will continue to serve the groups that are being bought against.
>
> Don't tell me advertisers don't ask for it.

As I said, I looked at the specs for every agency buy for LA in Q1 of 2006, and not one wants 55+. There is no advertiser demand.

> If you have it available and have competent
> salesmen, it will happen.

Radio does not have the abvility to reach and sell one dying format at the marketing manager level of agency clients. Stations do not visit, as a rule, clients of agencies (unless by permission) and it would be futile anyway.

> Just might take
> a little more work than targeting 18-year-olds.

Radio provides a service to advertisers. If advertisers do not call for something,w e do not provide it.

 

[KMRichards]

Re: 60's stuff is mostly dead and crispy.

> I understand what you're saying. My gripe isn't so much
> with you or those in like positions as it is with the ad
> community. Like I've said previously, because of
> advertisers and marketers refusal to adjust the upper part
> of the market segments to reflect the simple fact that the
> early "boomer" market are of retirement age, they are
> missing out on a "golden" opportunity to target a market
> that STILL has a considerable amount of disposable income
> and STILL prefer radio as a prime source of entertainment
> and information.

I would agree with that to some degree, fang, but there is also the fact that a very high percentage of over-55ers are not easily persuaded to switch brands or try a new product, which may lead to much of the bias at the agencies.

Here's a decent mind exercise we could all try. What products or services could be legitimately marketed to the older listeners? I'll start:

[*]Upscale automobiles (Mercedes Benz, Acura, etc.)
[*]Financial services (stock brokers, investment bankers)
[*]Supermarkets, pharmacies (everyone shops there, regardless of age)
[*]Home maintenance services (roofing, carpet cleaning, plumbing)

What else?<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[KMRichards]

Re: 60's stuff is mostly dead and crispy.

> > There is a HUGE difference between songs you are playing at
> > an event and the programming of a radio station.
>
> Yes, there is a HUGE difference. I play songs poeple
> actually WANT to hear!

However, you are not dependent on ratings and ad revenue to stay in business.

That is the difference between being a mobile DJ and being a radio station.

I'm running out of ways to explain it to you.

> > If we were to take "You Belong To Me" and test it among 25
> > to 49 year olds (the target demo for an Oldies station) it
> > wouldn't do well because it is not familiar enough to those
> > listeners.
>
> I disagree with that statement! Everytime a motion picture
> comes out that features hits from the 50's/60's
> (i.e.-Goodfellas, Sleepless In Seattle, etc.)in it's
> soundtrack, I get bombarded with requests from people in
> their 20's and 30's to play those songs. You're
> underestimating the mass appeal of these songs.

However, an old song in a new movie only has a fleeting moment of that kind of attention. Radio has to look at what plays in the long term.

> My mobile DJ experience relates to providing an
> entertainment product that people will actually pay money to
> listen to. If radio programmers and consultants would
> employ that kind of thinking into their programming, they'd
> have something that would attract listeners and advertisers
> alike.

What are your Arbitron numbers again?

Seriously, you make the exact point that should show you what the difference is. You are in a business where you are directly paid by the audience. Radio has to cater to the advertising community, because they pay the bills. I'm sure that if your service was free to the event but supported by advertisers, they would be dictating what you would play.

Here is the key statement you have misinterpreted: "something that would attract listeners and advertisers alike". You have the tail wagging the dog. Radio does what is necessary to attract the attention of the advertisers. It does not take risks in hopes of attracting them. Stations cost too much to buy to take those kind of risks.


Please understand that I don't disagree with the in-context experience that you are relating. But you cannot take it to the different context of radio. The business models are different.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: 60's stuff is mostly dead and crispy.

Home care and nursing services, medical clinics, ED products, travel programs, retirement real estate for some. Problem is oldies radio isn't the best buy for everyy product..lots and lots of boomers don't listen to oldies radio 9and no, that would not change with a "play everything that was round and didn't have pepperoni" approach.<P ID="signature">______________
"Your right to know supersedes your right to exist"..Gary Burbank</P>

 

[peppertree]

Re: The Height Of Trivia

Maybe they should put Alan Sniffen on the board for the Hall Of Fame. It seems to fit his temperment.

> And the fact that Jann Wenner can control who gets into the
> Rock Hall and can wrongfully force the inductions to be in
> NYC. He's a clown--a successful one, but still a clown.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[peppertree]

Re: Songs

What about WFUV?


Do they still have an oldies show. (In da bronx?)


> Doo-wop? Your oldies station plays Doo-Wop? You are lucky.
> Here in New York City, the birthplace of Doo-Wop, we don't
> have a single station playing the sweet harmonies of The
> Five Satins, Frankie Lymon & The Teenagers or The Crests.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[peppertree]

Re: Clap For...Imus

Yes, that was probably a recording of a phone call on his WNBC show.

I have a New Year's Eve aircheck of Wolfman and Imus doing New Year's Eve from Times Square for NYE 1974. It is about 90 minutes long from WNBC.
It has a lot of back and forth patter between the two radio giants.

> Well, if it was 1974, it all makes sense--both of them were
> on WNBC.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[peppertree]

Re: 60's stuff is mostly dead and crispy.

The irony, as you said, is that younger people don't listen to the radio or read the daily news. The older demos are still listening to the radio and that should be considered by advertisers.


> I understand what you're saying. My gripe isn't so much
> with you or those in like positions as it is with the ad
> community. Like I've said previously, because of
> advertisers and marketers refusal to adjust the upper part
> of the market segments to reflect the simple fact that the
> early "boomer" market are of retirement age, they are
> missing out on a "golden" opportunity to target a market
> that STILL has a considerable amount of disposable income
> and STILL prefer radio as a prime source of entertainment
> and information.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[peppertree]

Re: 60's stuff is mostly dead and crispy.

Doctors, surgeons, etc.
Nursing Homes
Funeral Homes
Over the counter drugs.
Hearing aides

I got this list from thinking back to the advertisers on Paul Harvey News And Comment.



> Upscale automobiles (Mercedes Benz, Acura, etc.)
> Financial services (stock brokers, investment bankers)
> Supermarkets, pharmacies (everyone shops there, regardless
> of age)
> Home maintenance services (roofing, carpet cleaning,
> plumbing)
>
> What else?
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[fang39]

Re: 60's stuff is mostly dead and crispy.

> The irony, as you said, is that younger people don't listen
> to the radio or read the daily news. The older demos are
> still listening to the radio and that should be considered
> by advertisers.

Ironic is the perfect way to describe the situation, but it seems we've been barking up the wrong tree about losing our beloved oldies stations the whole time. Apparently, it's the advertisers who dictate what we listen to. They say "jump" and radio programmers say "how high?" Sorry, but I'm not buying it. I just happen to be one of those people who doesn't accept things at face value and asks "why not?" While much that has been transcribed in this thread makes perfect sense in the business world, I'm not sure that the formats we want to bring back from the "dead" can't be "resurrected" with a modicum of success. It takes hard work and creativity and the ability to "think outside the box." Remember, the rules are what we make them. There have got to be a couple of "mavericks" out there (with resources) who are capable of proving the corporate radio world wrong.

 

[KMRichards]

It's a business. Treat it as such.

> Apparently, it's
> the advertisers who dictate what we listen to. They say
> "jump" and radio programmers say "how high?"

When you have been in radio ownership or management and had to worry about the bottom line or the return on investment, then you will understand that is true.

> Sorry, but I'm
> not buying it. I just happen to be one of those people who
> doesn't accept things at face value and asks "why not?"

When you own or manage a station, you will understand "why not" ... until then, you can ask it all you want but the question will fall on deaf ears.

> While much that has been transcribed in this thread makes
> perfect sense in the business world, I'm not sure that the
> formats we want to bring back from the "dead" can't be
> "resurrected" with a modicum of success. It takes hard work
> and creativity and the ability to "think outside the box."

Radio is a business. Therefore making perfect sense in the business world is precisely what needs to happen.

Get out of the mindset that radio is about the listeners, because it isn't, except when those listeners are in the target demo the advertisers want.

> Remember, the rules are what we make them. There have got
> to be a couple of "mavericks" out there (with resources) who
> are capable of proving the corporate radio world wrong.

Name one such "maverick" and be sure to show that they are profitable doing a format that has predominantly 55+ listeners. Please.
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: 60's stuff is mostly dead and crispy.

> The irony, as you said, is that younger people don't listen
> to the radio or read the daily news. The older demos are
> still listening to the radio and that should be considered
> by advertisers.

Actually, 18-54 listens very close to the amounts of 20, 30 or 40 years ago. It is 12-17 and 55+ who do not listen as much, and that is mostly because radio does not offer much specificly for these ages.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: 60's stuff is mostly dead and crispy.

>
> Ironic is the perfect way to describe the situation, but it
> seems we've been barking up the wrong tree about losing our
> beloved oldies stations the whole time. Apparently, it's
> the advertisers who dictate what we listen to. They say
> "jump" and radio programmers say "how high?"

Nope. Advertisers simply say, "these are the ages we buy" and radio statins recognize that under 18 and over 55 are not amont them. the short line to the cash window is in 18-54. The long one is 55+ or 12-17, and the pay window usually closes before we get there.

Radio programmers do not make the decision. Station management and ownership does, and then hires programmers to reach the desired money demo audience.

> Sorry, but I'm
> not buying it. I just happen to be one of those people who
> doesn't accept things at face value and asks "why not?"
> While much that has been transcribed in this thread makes
> perfect sense in the business world, I'm not sure that the
> formats we want to bring back from the "dead" can't be
> "resurrected" with a modicum of success.

No revenue = no format. Period.

> It takes hard work
> and creativity and the ability to "think outside the box."
> Remember, the rules are what we make them. There have got
> to be a couple of "mavericks" out there (with resources) who
> are capable of proving the corporate radio world wrong.

the problem is that the marketing departments at the advertsiers do not care what we put on the radio. they have no interest in formats or rotations or playlists. They simply know who they designed the products for. They order the ad agencies to reach them. If they don't, they fire the agency and get a new one. So it is unlikely that any ad agency is going to care a whit about preserving dying formats.
>

 

[fang39]

Re: It's a business. Treat it as such.

> Get out of the mindset that radio is about the listeners,
> because it isn't, except when those listeners are in the
> target demo the advertisers want.

That may be the single saddest statement I've ever read on this website!

 

[fang39]

Re: 60's stuff is mostly dead and crispy.

> It is 12-17 and 55+ who do not listen as
> much, and that is mostly because radio does not offer much
> specificly for these ages.

And that alone should serve as a wake-up call to the industry as a whole. Do you think once this group (12-17) reaches the desired demo group, they'll become radio listeners? Not likely. They'll adapt their Ipods to play in their cars. They're gone and they're not coming back. And it'll continue to get worse as they get older and technology advances.

 

[CTListener]

Re: question

> Your question is based on the assumption that just because
> you play the biggest hit or two by an artist that radio
> listeners should automatically like most of the songs by
> that artist. And a bit of an oversimplification, as well
> (yeah, right- they're taking sledgehammers and smashing
> their radios and running screaming from rooms. Don't be
> daffy).

Just a little hyperbole; sorry if it wasn't taken in the spirit that it was written.

>
> Oldies is a SONG-BASED format more than artist-based. There
> are 3 major Righteous Brothers hits that Oldies listeners
> consistently say they want to hear on a regular basis- "Just
> Once In My Life" and "Ebb Tide" are not among them.

"Soul and Inspiration," "You've Lost That Loving Feeling," "Unchained Melody" ... What? No "Rock and Roll Heaven"?

> "Still
> The One" and "Dance With Me" are Orleans' 2 major hits- I
> suppose you could spin "Love Takes Time" and package it as a
> "Lost Hit" on a very limited basis but not as a part of
> regular programming (and I'm not sure I'd play "Want Ads" at
> all, much less "Stick Up", which was a true stiff).

My intention in pursuing this thread was to explore ways to revive the oldies format. I'm not a radio pro; I've heard all the pros' arguments and I certainly can't dispute them on the basis of anything I've ever heard (or heard of) on FM. It just seems to me that shooting down all attempts to shake things up at oldies radio on the basis of "Those songs were stiffs" or "Those songs were hits, but aren't relevant today" or "Those songs will make 99% of the listeners change the station" (Talk about hyperbole!) is pretty much passing a death sentence on the format. We'll just run these old songs into the ground until either nobody's listening or nobody's advertising anymore.

I enjoy most of the oldies format's staples. You could play "When a Man Loves a Woman" or "Groovin'" or "Respect" three times a day for the rest of my life and I wouldn't get tired of them. But why a playlist of 300 to 400 songs, with no additions or deletions for years? Even classic rockers and sleepy soft AC's add and delete every so often. Would an occasional "Love Takes Time" or "Family of Man" -- say, once every two or three hours -- really HURT the station's numbers measurably? Or is the number of listeners those "surprise" songs would retain and/or attract not worth throwing out years of research?

 

[KMRichards]

Re: It's a business. Treat it as such.

> > Get out of the mindset that radio is about the listeners,
> > because it isn't, except when those listeners are in the
> > target demo the advertisers want.
>
> That may be the single saddest statement I've ever read on
> this website!

I don't dispute that it is a sad statement.

But it is also a true statement.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[KMRichards]

Re: 60's stuff is mostly dead and crispy.

> Do you think once this group (12-17)
> reaches the desired demo group, they'll become radio
> listeners? Not likely.

Actually, iPod users remain radio listeners to a degree. Most studies I have seen indicate that, on average, that group listens somewhere around 15 to 30 minutes less per day than they did before they got their iPods.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[fang39]

Re: It's a business. Treat it as such.

> I don't dispute that it is a sad statement.
>
> But it is also a true statement.

I suppose it is, but I never thought that "planned obsolescense" would apply to radio listeners!

 

[davideduardo]

Re: 60's stuff is mostly dead and crispy.

> > It is 12-17 and 55+ who do not listen as
> > much, and that is mostly because radio does not offer much
>
> > specificly for these ages.
>
> And that alone should serve as a wake-up call to the
> industry as a whole. Do you think once this group (12-17)
> reaches the desired demo group, they'll become radio
> listeners? Not likely. They'll adapt their Ipods to play
> in their cars. They're gone and they're not coming back.
> And it'll continue to get worse as they get older and
> technology advances.

Actually, it has been decades since there were 12-17 buys of significance. So radio has only used teens to leveraage new youth formats (Power Pig being the best example) before moving them 18-34.

And over that time period, folks come into radio as thier life gets more complicated with job and family responsibilities which make radio a very good option when there is no tome to use more time-and-effort-consuming entertertainment media.
>