Songs that didn't get much radio airplay

[954]

Florida Keys

> I remember Anita Bryant doing that TV spot around 1969.
> Singing, "Be A Friendly Floridian."
> Put out the welcome mat.

I remember it, too. From radio. Not sure of the year.

Don't know if I ever saw it on TV.

Of course, back then, I probably never heard of her anyway!!!

Remember "Arrive Alive"?

> > And a Friendly Floridian for 40 years.
> >
> > 73s from 954
> >
>
<P ID="signature">______________
"As bad as the Republicans are, the Democrats are worse"... Neal Boortz, 3/16/06</P>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Songs

>
> I guess songs of the 50s have ceased to exist
> for you, probably since back in 1990.

For me, personally, they may exist. I have way over 5000 songs from maybe 25 formats in my iPod. But for radio, the 50's stuff is not viable because we are advertiser driven.
>
> Would you believe that I also listen to a web radio
> station with music of the 1920s? People have tastes
> that you cannot imagine. And that areen't represented
> in your tests.

There are all kinds of niche formats we all know about. We find them all the time when we do format searches and perceptuals. But... they are not big enough to make money on, or the ages attracted are not called for by advertisers.

There will always be a percentage of listeners commercial radio can not appeal to, and there always has been. THis is because the people in that group have far less mainstream tastes and can not be viably served. Viability means that we can make money by doing it.

 

[KMRichards]

Re: 60's stuff is mostly dead -- NEVER!

> David I don't think those of who are ANGLOS can relate to
> songs that WERE NOT hits on English language Top 40-type
> stations, you know the ones we grew up with HERE IN THE USA.
> The same goes for African-Americans and perhaps
> American-born Hispanics who grew up in the 50s and 60s.
> Yes we understand when you say oldies are oldies.... We know
> where you're coming from


The methodology for creating an Oldies format is the same, regardless of the language that the songs and DJs are using.

Research, testing, etc. are the same. You are using the language question as a straw man.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[954]

Re: Songs

> >
> > No, I'd limit it to songs that were hits before 1965
> > (my choice) or 1970.
> >
> > You start putting 1980s music in there and it is
> > diluted so much it becomes meaningless ... spanning two
> > generations and losing its identity. How many Madonna
> > fans go for doowop and vice versa?
> >
> What you are missing is that you have to cut off anything
> pre '67 or '68, as that gets non-salable demos. There is no
> reason the oldies format can not move to always keep 35-54
> listeners, instead of changing to be mostly 45-64 today, and
> getting older by the second.

The reason is that the people who do not care for the
music of 35-year-olds are being squeezed out altogether.

Then it's not an Rock & Roll Oldies Format,
it's a 25-years-ago-today format.

Not the same, Dave-oroonie.

73s from 954, listening to Slim Gaillard.... do you know who HE is?
<P ID="signature">______________
"As bad as the Republicans are, the Democrats are worse"... Neal Boortz, 3/16/06</P>

 

[KMRichards]

Re: Songs

> The reason is that the people who do not care for the
> music of 35-year-olds are being squeezed out altogether.
>
> Then it's not an Rock & Roll Oldies Format,
> it's a 25-years-ago-today format.
>
> Not the same, Dave-oroonie.

Cuteness notwithstanding, you inadvertently made the point we have been trying to.

"Rock and Roll Oldies" is no longer a saleable format. "Oldies" as a format has to evolve to a "25 years ago" presentation to keep making ad sales.

All of your excellent examples of online niche stations do not change the fact that broadcast terrestrial radio is a business, and a presentation that does not get enough listeners in the demographics that advertisers want to market to is not going to be able to last.

I like R&R Oldies too, but I wouldn't risk my reputation as a programmer by creating a format around them anymore. Ten or twenty years ago, I would have.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[KMRichards]

Re: I Hope She Never Finds Her Keys

> You know I had a feeling if you were around, you'd know
> them!!

See, consultants aren't completely unknowledgeable. <P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[954]

25-years-ago-today format

> > The reason is that the people who do not care for the
> > music of 35-year-olds are being squeezed out altogether.
> >
> > Then it's not an Rock & Roll Oldies Format,
> > it's a 25-years-ago-today format.
> >
> > Not the same, Dave-oroonie.
>
> Cuteness notwithstanding, you inadvertently made the point
> we have been trying to.
>
> "Rock and Roll Oldies" is no longer a saleable format.
> "Oldies" as a format has to evolve to a "25 years ago"
> presentation to keep making ad sales.

Maybe that is a valid point.
But then they should quit pretending it's oldies.

> All of your excellent examples of online niche stations do
> not change the fact that broadcast terrestrial radio is a
> business, and a presentation that does not get enough
> listeners in the demographics that advertisers want to
> market to is not going to be able to last.
>
> I like R&R Oldies too, but I wouldn't risk my reputation as
> a programmer by creating a format around them anymore. Ten
> or twenty years ago, I would have.

<s>I could swear that yeu said last year that you
were (paraphrasing) sick of most oldies. If I'm
wrong... Sorry about that, chief.</s> (Oops... I
thought I was replying to Dave when I wrote that)

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
"As bad as the Republicans are, the Democrats are worse"... Neal Boortz, 3/16/06</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by 954 on 03/21/06 01:23 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[peppertree]

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

I think you are wrong. Radio is a business and they are looking where the money is.

Off topic: The convict was asked, "Why did you rob banks?" He answered, "That's where the money is."

> a) Listen to Radio regularly.
> b) Have an opinion about the lousy programming they are
> subjected to.
>
> Using the lowest common denominator to determine what songs
> "test well" and get played is both insulting and short
> sighted. Ten years from now, when terrestrial radio is on
> life support, we'll be able to look back and remember those
> "consultants" who led the medium to ruin.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[peppertree]

Re: Florida Keys

Yes, I remember Arrive Alive. Then I remember Arrive Stoned.

In the TV spot, she was water skiing. There were scenes from Cypress Gardens (remember 540 WGTO?) and a scene from her all dressed up like an Antebellum matron's daughter in some beauty contest. (I think Anita was Miss Universe around 1952).

> I remember it, too. From radio. Not sure of the year.
>
> Don't know if I ever saw it on TV.
>
> Of course, back then, I probably never heard of her
> anyway!!!
>
> Remember "Arrive Alive"?
>
> > > And a Friendly Floridian for 40 years.
> > >
> > > 73s from 954
> > >
> >
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[peppertree]

Re: The Height Of Trivia

Those polls are about as trivial as trivial can get. Well almost.

> > > > > [I think I remember Rolling Stone calling Pet Sounds
>
> > the
> > > > > greatest LP in rock and roll history.
> >
> > > > Actually, they had Sgt. Pepper at #1. Pet Sounds was
> > #2.
> >
> > > Right band, wrong album.
> > >
> > > The Beatles' Revolver was #1; Pet Sounds #2; and Sgt.
> > Pepper
> > > was either #3 or #4 (with a Dylan album in the top 5 as
> > > well...can't remember which one now).
> >
> > From Rolling Stone's own website:
> http://www.rollingstone.co>
> m/news/story/5938174/the_rs_500_greatest_albums_of_all_time/
>
> >
> >
> > 1. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Beatles
> > 2. Pet Sounds, The Beach Boys
> > 3. Revolver, The Beatles
> > 4. Highway 61 Revisited, Bob Dylan
>
>
> Well, now I'm categorically puzzled. I agree that Sgt.
> Pepper is and should be #1. But I DISTINCTLY remember
> reading something that put Revolver as the greatest album of
> all time. It apparently wasn't RS, so now I'm baffled.
>
> I'm gonna look this up.
>
> Ah, the VIRGIN All-Time Top 1000 albums has Revolver at #1.
>
> I see WH1 also called it the greatest of all time.
>
> I issue a mea culpa here. My old mind got confused by all
> these different lists.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[954]

Re: Florida Keys

> Yes, I remember Arrive Alive. Then I remember Arrive
> Stoned.
>
> In the TV spot, she was water skiing. There were scenes
> from Cypress Gardens (remember 540 WGTO?) and a scene from
> her all dressed up like an Antebellum matron's daughter in
> some beauty contest. (I think Anita was Miss Universe
> around 1952).

Now I think GTO's a satellite of WFLA. What a waste.

That scenario does sound familiar. I must have seen it.



> > I remember it, too. From radio. Not sure of the year.
> >
> > Don't know if I ever saw it on TV.
> >
> > Of course, back then, I probably never heard of her
> > anyway!!!
> >
> > Remember "Arrive Alive"?
> >
> > > > And a Friendly Floridian for 40 years.
> > > >
> > > > 73s from 954
<P ID="signature">______________
"As bad as the Republicans are, the Democrats are worse"... Neal Boortz, 3/16/06</P>

 

[KMRichards]

Re: The Height Of Trivia

> Those polls are about as trivial as trivial can get. Well
> almost.

I don't believe it was a poll, though.

I'm pretty sure it was a consensus of Rolling Stone's editors, reporters, and columnists.

That elevates it somewhere above the level of mere trivia.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[TheFonz]

Re: Unnecessary duplication of information ...

t> tp://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5938174/the_rs_500_gre>
> atest_albums_of_all_time/?rnd=1142881988320&has-player=false
>
>
> [Didn't I just post that same link two hours before you did?]



Actually it was 1 hour and 54 minutes. And now we BOTH took up unnecessary space in this thread.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Songs

>
> The reason is that the people who do not care for the
> music of 35-year-olds are being squeezed out altogether.

Again: there is no ad money for 55+ targeted radio stations. Audience over 55 is pretty much useless commercially, so we do not program for 55+.

 

[fang39]

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

I've read Mr. Eduardo's postings, and while I've learned much from his (and yours) explanation on how the process works, I'm increasingly frustrated by the rhetoric expressed by the "professionals" on this board. I keep reading how they are done with the 60's, after having buried the 50's years ago. At this rate, the "Oldies" format will be extinct in less than 5 years, hence "Classic Hits."

I got back into the radio industry in the past couple of years after starting as a jock in the 70's, moving into clubs and eventually a successful Mobile DJ business. So I go on this (and other) boards to read, learn and hopefully understand what is going on within the industry. It's been an education, for sure!

Simply put, I think it's paralysis by analysis. I've learned the key to success is to listen to your audience and give them what they want. For example, in 28 years, I've yet to work an event where The Duprees "You Belong To Me" didn't pack the dance floor. Yet, you'd be hard pressed to hear it on the radio anymore. That's because (according to you guys) nobody wants to hear THAT anymore!

 

[fang39]

Re: Songs

> How many Madonna fans go for doowop and vice versa?

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.

 

[954]

more media choices

> > How many Madonna fans go for doowop and vice versa?
>
> Doo-wop? Your oldies station plays Doo-Wop? You are lucky.

Yeah. It did about ten years ago.

They sent it to their borokered station.

Then it turned sports.

No it's on that schizo "adult hits" station I mentioned earlier.
3 hours a week.

> 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.

Yeah, but you have stations with jazz, classical,
etc... formats which were abandoned here years ago.

I wouldn't want to live in or within 1000 miles of
NYC... but you DO have more media choices.

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
"As bad as the Republicans are, the Democrats are worse"... Neal Boortz, 3/16/06</P>

 

[davideduardo]

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

> I've read Mr. Eduardo's postings, and while I've learned
> much from his (and yours) explanation on how the process
> works, I'm increasingly frustrated by the rhetoric expressed
> by the "professionals" on this board. I keep reading how
> they are done with the 60's, after having buried the 50's
> years ago. At this rate, the "Oldies" format will be
> extinct in less than 5 years, hence "Classic Hits."

We are done with the 50's and 60's because the age of people who grew up on this music is over 55. This audience is not desirable, and we would be fired if we suggested targeting it.
>
> I got back into the radio industry in the past couple of
> years after starting as a jock in the 70's, moving into
> clubs and eventually a successful Mobile DJ business. So I
> go on this (and other) boards to read, learn and hopefully
> understand what is going on within the industry. It's been
> an education, for sure!

Nothing has changed. What advertisers want is what we provide. Since they od not want over 55 listeners, we do not provide that service.
>
> Simply put, I think it's paralysis by analysis. I've
> learned the key to success is to listen to your audience and
> give them what they want.

Actually, we listen to advertisers, and give them what they want. If they want nobody over 55 (which is the case) we do not play the Duprees.

> For example, in 28 years, I've
> yet to work an event where The Duprees "You Belong To Me"
> didn't pack the dance floor. Yet, you'd be hard pressed to
> hear it on the radio anymore. That's because (according to
> you guys) nobody wants to hear THAT anymore!

Many people may want to hear the song, but they are over 55. I have no idea how it researches in over-60-year-olds. That is because we have no interest in knowing what folks over 60 want to hear because we can not progrma to that demo.
>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Songs

> > How many Madonna fans go for doowop and vice versa?
>
> 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.

And there is a reason. CBS-FM, no matter how they tried, was off 20% in billing sicne 2000 and the market was up 20%! In other words, the audience was becoming of little interest... playing even older music would have been even worse.
>

 

[CTRadio]

Re: A philosophical question

Listeners who like oldies have plenty of other places to go: classic rock, news talk, AC, country. Oldies stations have always shared audience with other formats even at their height. When they punch back to the oldies button, you'd better have something that most people can relate to. "Want Ads" is at best some filler tune, which is how Westwood One's Oldies Channel used it, so "Stick Up" won't set the world on fire either. People know "Joy To The World." You overestimate the familiarity of "Family of Man" or "Pieces of April." I like 'em fine, but what you and I think "sounds good" and what 99% of listeners will stand for are usually two different things. Success is determined by finding out what will win, not what we think we can get away with.

Playing "Love Takes Time" as a forgotten 45 or in a "70s at 7" is one thing, but if you rotate enough of that level of familiarity into each hour you're flirtin' with tuneout. They won't smash their radio or call to complain. They'll just go away sooner than they might have or rethink having you as one of their top 2 or 3 presets. Some wise programmer once said, "It's the listeners you don't hear from that you have to worry about."

> Do 99 percent of listeners REALLY change the station when
> something unfamiliar, even by an artist they know, gets
> played on their favorite oldies station? Do the same
> listeners who love "Joy to the World" and "Black and White"
> switch stations when "Family of Man" or "Pieces of April"
> comes on? Do the same listeners who have made Honey Cone's
> "Want Ads" a format staple run screaming from the room if
> the station dares to play "Stick Up," which is basically the
> same song with different lyrics? Do the same listeners who
> love Orleans' "Still the One" take sledgehammers to their
> radios upon hearing the first notes of "Love Takes Time"?
>
> I know tight-playlist oldies has a track record of
> maintaining steady listenership. But it's 2006 now, not
> 1986. Listeners who like oldies don't really have anyplace
> else on the dial to go. Top 40 radio is full of Kanye West
> and Kelly Clarkson. AC radio is full of Coldplay and Uncle
> Kracker and Robbie Thomas, and generally won't touch
> anything recorded before 1985. Classic rock radio is full of
> U2 and Pretenders and Nirvana. Nobody else is playing the
> Four Tops or the Grass Roots or Dionne Warwick. So why are
> oldies programmers still so afraid of listeners changing the
> station? They're not going to find anything stylistically
> similar to the music they like elsewhere on FM, and if they
> turn to satellite, they'll be dealing with expanded
> playlists anyway ... so why not open up FM oldies playlists
> a bit?
>