Re: Songs
>
> Which shows me that you don't know much about Cleveland's
> population makeup. It is a proven researched fact that well
> over 50-60% of the people who were born and raised in this
> market
> are still here!!!
So there are 40% to 50% that did not grow up there. And that is my point. Some cities have less than 30% born-there, like Vegas and Phoenix, and some have over 80%, like Rochester or Springfield, Mass.
When you have nearly have your constituency unfamiliar with local hits, such as they were, you have no reason to play them unless you want them to say, "what the heck is that" and tune out.
> This is not as cosmopolitan a city as an
> LA,
> NY, or Toronto just to name a few.
I am aware of what Cleveland is and is not. It is also one of the world's medical centers (Cleveland Clinic) and cultural cneters (Severance Center, CWRU, the Symphony, the Historical Society, etc. And it is a significant banking, industrial and comerce center. It is hardly a backwater.
(It was also the starting point for NormBob... who I also worked for years after you were at WIXY.)
> Again, I stress the fact
> that
> such songs should be used sparingly, not made the routine.
> WMJI has been the oldies leader here for a good number of
> years.
> What made it successful when John Gorman set up the
> programming
> was use of those local and regional hits. The biggest
> complaint
> heard from listeners today is that they play the same oldies
>
> over and over again (since Jacor/CC took over). The only
> reason
> they still enjoy big numbers is because of John Lanigan's
> AMD
> show (which is about 99% talk).
Many 60's olldies stations that still do well do so because of a braoder based morning show. The format itself is really crispy in most places, at least where there still are oldies stations. The things Gorman did worked for a while, but much of the library, like at all oldies stations, faded and can not be revived no matter how long they rest.
> The rest of the time they're
>
> riding on their past reputation enjoying the benefits of
> brilliant
> past marketing and promotion. Operation wise they're a mere
> shadow of their true glory days.
As are all oldies stations today.
> In additions to stations like WHK/WIXY/KYW-WKYC, you also
> have
> to consider the influence of former Canadian monster CKLW
> which
> had huge listenership in Cleveland.
... in parts of Cleveland. Inland from the lake, it sucked. And daytime, except in the Parma to Lakewood area, it was pretty hard to hear well. It was a teen station at night, when WIXY and WHK lost coverage on very sucky night patterns. It did not have the ratings some people think it had... it was very much an afterthought...
> You can't just plop down
> a
> simple formula with the same playlist heard coast to coast.
No one does that. In rated markets, songs are usually tested locally. Certainly they are in Cleveland.
> Granted, those universally accepted "perfect" songs will be
> heard
> and heard regularly, but they shouldn't be the ONLY thing
> you hear.
> All you research fanatics seem to forget that research is
> just
> one of many tools that can be used to formulate successful
> programming.
But it is a start, especially if you have any concern about losing listeners when they hear songs they hate. More important is where and how deep the negativity comes from than the overall positives. But unless you have high passion songs, too, you get no TSL.
> It was not MEANT to be NOR SHOULD IT BE the MAIN rule. I've
> been
> involved with research, both callout and group testing, for
> many
> years of being a PD/APD/MD/AMD.
And so have I. With research, I can always beat an unresearched station by playing the biggies more often and not playing the stiffs... I started doing respondent level research in the late 60's, so I have a certain amount of experience with it.
The biggest issue is not the test itself, but the recruit. If you do not separately verify each participant, you could have a totally bogus test and not know it. You always did that at check-in, right?
> Some of the results were so
> ridiculous
> that you'd end up changing entire libraries if you followed
> the data
> gathered.
Oh, sorry I asked the question. I guess you did not verify the recruit. Did you spend much time on the recruit specs? Sounds like you did not. Recruit and verification of recruit are 90% of a music test. The rest is mechanics.
> Rather than panicing and adjusting playlists right
> away,
> we just considered it a fluke and tossed it out and
> re-scheduled
> another session. I don't have anything against research, but
> use it
> as a HELP, not the Gospel.
I have just had a half-dozen stations pop to #1 in their target demo in the first 30 days on the air. without research, I couldnot have done it. But I must have better research than you had, apparently... as that would be my only explanation for your feelings.
