Re: Songs
> > Actually, the blame for the demise of oldies stations
> > consists of these factors:
> >
> > 1) failure of most to move out of the 60s slowly and into
> > the 70's and later.
>
> This one is pure baloney. If you want the older demo group
> you keep the 50's, 60's and early 70's. if you want a
> younger demo then you drop 50's and move up into the 80's.
> But even this is not a guarantee. You start moving to far
> past '75 and you lose me and I'm only 46. And I know a lot
> of people my age and younger that agree.
You still do not understand. No agency account wants 55+, so there is no way, even if Hades becomes an ice rink and fields a hockey team, to keep 50's and most 60's music today.
And a good programmer witht he right tools can move an oldies station into the 70's and even the 80's. I did it in LA with my programming team, and the numbers grew and the average age loweered.
>
> > 2) 55+ demos are not desirable to advertisers in rated
> > markets and radio has no control of this.
>
> Now this one is right on the money. The advertisers make
> the final choice, but a good salesman would be remiss to
> not point out that the older demo has more disposable
> income than the younger but won't part with it frivously.
Agency account buys are placed by buyers who have absolutely no say for the target demos. That decision was made in the marketing division of the client, as I have said dozens of times, and all the buyers do is put out a call for rates in the target demo.
In LA, the lrgest radio ad market in the world, there have been no 55+ buys so far this year!
> Another problem is that most Sales and Advertising people
> are younger (i.e. cheaper) and could not care less about
> the older demo's. Most of the younger sales people couldn't
> sell ice water in hell either.
Irrelevant and immaterial. 60's oldies staitons can survive still in suburban and unrated markets as the customers are not agencies and direct accounts can be approached, often with good success. But in the larger rated markets, agency buys offer no sales access at the time of demo selection. Period.
> The only remidy for this that I have figured out (and it's
> not a guarantee) is if you own stock in a company go to the
> shareholders meeting and let them know. I do that myself.
The idea of someone standing up to defend Gary Glitter and Fats Domino is mirthful. I would go just to join in the laughter.
>
> > 3. the songs in the format are inncreasingly tiresome to
> > even the core, leaving very few that are playable... and
> > reducing the core of listeners who care about he music.
>
> Of course they're tired. 450 songs over and over and over
> are going to get tired and tiresome.
There used to be more, but they are burning out. Unless one moves into the 70's and beyond, the format dies. Most oldies listeners are tired of the format, not just the songs. And, still, you can not play songs that most do not want to hear anymore just to increase the list.
> >
> > The solutions given by folks like you, such as increasing
> > library, going further back into the 50's,e tc., are all
> > either impractical (getting older demos is not a solution)
>
> > or proven over and over to fail (increasing the library
> with
> > songs that do not test well).
>
> I forget the exact number but between 1955 and 1972 there
> are somwhere around 11,000 songs that hit the top 100.
And only a couple of hundred are still hits.
> Add to that the bubbling under songs, oh and don't forget
> all those songs you say got played due to the payola and
> kept another song from the charts, add those too and you
> have a very respectable block of music to work with.
Around 400. And the demos are still going to be 55+.
The rest of the songs are, today, stiffs.
> A large selection of songs and good rotation will keep the
> songs from getting tired and you listeners happy. We hear
> it all the time from listeners.
All 11 of them? Bad example.
> As for testing songs, Well David to be honest, I have
> forgotten
> more about good oldies than you and cat will ever know, and
> guys
> like Chris Quinn, Cousin Brucie and Norm N. Nite knows more
> than
> I ever will. You guys don't have a clue which songs you
> should
> be testing.
The correct answer is that we do not know what songs will test. So every time we test (I do 12 oldies tests a year), we add what iff songs. we also add songs that have rested, and songs that were marginal. We test and retest, only discarding a song if it is such a klunker that it never gets close to the "maybe" bar. Oh, we test up to 1500 songs per test, and are, manybe, the only oldies stations to do that.
Since nobody but the listeners knows which oldies will be desirable or hits today, we test them all, over and over and over. But as time goes on, we see that the bulk of the 60's library has no hope in any time in any market. After a song stiffs 4 or 5 times, we know it is a goner.
> If you were to sit down and test all 11,000
> songs
> (or what ever the number is)you would come up with a
> playlist
> with a large core and that had plenty of other great songs
> that
> should/would be put into lighter rotation for the "wow"
> factor
> and to help break things up a bit.
You would ocme up with a very tired group of respondents.
Humor aside, you can test everything relevant and do it in multiple groups, although you are talking about over $120,000 the first time you test. And you get 400 to 500 songs. If you move out of the 60's, you can go to the high hundreds in hit songs.
>
> >
> > All this data comes from two sources: the listeners and
> the
> > advertisers. None of it comes from consultants. In fact,
> it
> > appears that it takes a consultant to make the average
> > person here see reality.
> >
> I would believe the Advertisers saying it but not listeners.
>
> My personal experience proves to me otherwise and the
> reaction
> when WMJI dropped 50's proves the same. It got so bad that
> they
> sarted a sunday night show featuring 50's songs and
> requests.
> I've also noticed that they've added some 50's songs into
> the
> playlist again. Not a lot but some. Heard Elvis just a bit
> ago.
>
> Any relationship between a consutant and reality around here
>
> is purely coincidental.
>
> Mike Dane
> WSTB-FM 88.9
> SundayOldiesJukebox.com
>
