Soon! The coming Talk Radio tsunami...

[gr8oldies]

What indie music do they like, and a re there enough who like the same indie music to create a format. I'd thinking saying "I like Indie music" might be a lot like saying "I only watch PBS". It's the politically correct thing to say, but if it suddenly appeared on the radio dial would folks tune in or go "click".

 

[TheBigA]

Everyone has an agenda. The Future of Music Coalition is filled with people who hate radio, and come up with studies like this all the time to perpetuate their agenda. For every study they do, there are similar studies from Edison Reseach Group and other people with backgrounds in radio that say the complete opposite. Who is right? It depends on who you believe and who you agree with. As I said in an earlier post, there is no truth, just what you believe. But I can't name any stations that play a lot of indie music that also get great ratings. Can you?

 

[cabradio]

What indie music do they like, and a re there enough who like the same indie music to create a format. I'd thinking saying "I like Indie music" might be a lot like saying "I only watch PBS". It's the politically correct thing to say, but if it suddenly appeared on the radio dial would folks tune in or go "click".

The only difference between indie music and labels is money. Music is music. There are many many times that when I hear a song on the radio (usually represented by a label) I don't like it. But then after I have heard it 300 times, I find myself tapping my foot. So, pop on an indie, play it a few times and people warm up to it.

You won't please everyone all the time. But that is what cookie-cutter formats attempt to do by keeping a small play list dictated by the labels.

This is a simplified view. But as basic as it is, the only reason to make it more complicated is if someone has something to gain.

 

[TheBigA]

The only difference between indie music and labels is money. Music is music. There are many many times that when I hear a song on the radio (usually represented by a label) I don't like it. But then after I have heard it 300 times, I find myself tapping my foot. So, pop on an indie, play it a few times and people warm up to it.

People aren't stupid. They like what they like, and if they don't like what's on the radio at a given time, they have many other options available. So they can't wait for a song to grow on them.

Radio isn't in the music business. It's in the audience business. I make music decisions every day, and I don't care about label. I care if the song will attract an audience. Not after 300 plays, but after the first spin. If it doesn't work, it's gone. If the music on the radio sucks, blame the people making the music, not the ones who play it.

 

[davideduardo]

hmm...according to this article written in response to this study, listeners like indie music and want more of it despite radio's allegiance to the labels. INTERESTING.

As Big A has said, radio programmers don't as a rule pay any attention to the label on a song. The criteria used in selecting new adds is based on how good the song is, and how it compares to other new songs. A name artist will have an advantage over a little known artist, because we know that is important to the listners. Other than that, it's about the song itself.

Of course, the bigger stations will have callout tracking within a few weeks, and the song will have to show strength or it is gone.

 

[gr8oldies]

It's not the labels shoving musci down people'e throats and dictating playlists, it's audience tellig radio stations what to play, through the process everyone hates..the dreaded "r" (research) word.

 

[adma]

And what kinds of audience specimens does said research tend to favour or intercept?

http://www.edisonresearch.com/home/archives/2008/05/has_radio_lost_the_college_gra.php

Also, from here...

After 3 p.m., Now 92.3 becomes a lifestyle talk station for young women that also happens to play CHR music. In that regard, it's not unlike Rick Torcasso's "Young Country" stations of the early '90s that were built around the phones but happened to play Country music.

Judging from the callers, Now 92.3 is aiming at a certain group of hard-living women in North Jersey and Staten Island. Recent topics have included "youngest woman with the oldest boyfriend," "guys who should be on a 'No-Date List,'" and "I dropped out of school, now I have a menial job." (Remember our earlier findings about the amount of listening controlled by employed non-college-graduates?)

Radio isn't in the music business. It's in the audience business. I make music decisions every day, and I don't care about label. I care if the song will attract an audience. Not after 300 plays, but after the first spin. If it doesn't work, it's gone. If the music on the radio sucks, blame the people making the music, not the ones who play it.

Or again, as per the above links, blame the audience. And I'm sure that, increasingly, that's what "indie fans" and just plain "music fans" have become accustomed to doing--which is part of why they've factored radio out of the picture in a way they might not have a generation ago.

 

[cabradio]

People aren't stupid. They like what they like, and if they don't like what's on the radio at a given time, they have many other options available. So they can't wait for a song to grow on them.

Radio isn't in the music business. It's in the audience business. I make music decisions every day, and I don't care about label. I care if the song will attract an audience. Not after 300 plays, but after the first spin. If it doesn't work, it's gone. If the music on the radio sucks, blame the people making the music, not the ones who play it.

You're right. People aren't stupid. Why does radio continue to treat them like they are?

Radio is in the CONTENT business. And if you don't provide the content people want, you won't have an audience to sell to. The success of shows like American Idol PROVE people want to hear something new and unique. Apparently RADIO let TV have that niche because you want to play it safe all the time.

You can argue all you want, as someone who makes music decisions every day, in the end it will be YOUR decisions that people will look back on and question. Are you really playing EVERYTHING your audience wants, or what you THINK they want? Remember, even a 10 share is only 10% of the whole audience that returned a diary, that Arbitron has formulated with an imperfect science, of people that may be listening. Of course PPM is supposed to change that, but it won't really.

There is no longer room for egos in the biz. You either humble yourself, listen and learn, or eventually get pushed to the side. Radio has to adapt to the "sharing" concept of social media. If radio doesn't, then well, I guess there are plenty of McDonald's out there.

As Big A has said, radio programmers don't as a rule pay any attention to the label on a song. The criteria used in selecting new adds is based on how good the song is, and how it compares to other new songs. A name artist will have an advantage over a little known artist, because we know that is important to the listners. Other than that, it's about the song itself.

Of course, the bigger stations will have callout tracking within a few weeks, and the song will have to show strength or it is gone.

This type of analysis always makes me laugh. And just who decides how good a song is? How can you compare a song to other songs, until it has been played enough times, and people are requesting it and sales are being made? Songs are like commercials: The more you play them, the more response you get. Period. No need for a bunch of radio-pyscho-babble.

Sure the name of the brand is important. But all brands start somewhere whether it is an artist, a car, cereal or toilet paper. When you put a brand (known or not) on the end case, it sells. So, what does the supermarket want to push today? What did they buy a lot of and need to get rid of? Radio is nothing but an advertising machine and people buy what is pushed on them, including the music.

Everyone is number one in something. And this illusion that Agencies and Labels have created that you have to be number 1 in the market is hogwash. Being "number 1" is all relative to the audience you are selling to. Yes, women do most of the buying. Yes women like what is familiar. But it can't really be familiar until she has heard it a few times. So the familiarity is less about specific songs, and more about the relationship the station has created with the woman listening. When the woman listening feels like what the station is going to play for her is "safe", ie within her boundary, it doesn't matter how "popular" the song is.

Most PDs would NOT have played an Indie band named Nirvana, but put them on a label and whoa! Watch out! So TheBigA, are your REALLY paying attention to Indie artists at all? I doubt it. You're only watching what other, "bigger" stations are playing, and they are playing artists that are represented. Well, as Dave Ramsey and Bill O'Reilly found out...pay to be on the BIG stations and eventually you will see enough success that the smaller stations will be clamoring for you. That sums up how the music radio industry works too. And many artists, if they had the money to do so, would do it too. But there are laws against that. So, they go through labels...that provide promotional gifts to stations to give away, to encourage that air play. I mean really..if Sony gave you 100 cd's a week to give away, you're telling me you don't HAVE to play what they are pushing? HA, no you don't HAVE to, but if you don't you will tarnish the relationship and then Sony will no longer feed you.

The Radio industry is not as pure as you want people to think.

 

[TheBigA]

And I'm sure that, increasingly, that's what "indie fans" and just plain "music fans" have become accustomed to doing--which is part of why they've factored radio out of the picture in a way they might not have a generation ago.

A generation ago, they had no choice. So they'd sit through all kinds of crap to get to something they liked. Not the situation now. So "indie fans" don't listen to radio. That accounts for the 4% who don't listen, compared to the 96% who do. Personally, I'll give up 4% if it gets me 96%. I'm not saying that's how it works, but I was always taught that you don't program to music fans. They will never be happy with what you're doing.

At some point the goals of radio and music will be different. I've been to several music conferences in the last few weeks, and the industry seems to be moving away from the big monster music acts that attract large audiences. If that continues, it will be less is radio's interests to play music. Which gets us back to Holland's point at the start of this thread. If the RIAA is hell-bent on charging a percentage of radio revenue to stations that play music, and music is no longer attracting concentrated audiences any more, then there's simply no point in playing music on the radio. It costs you money, and doesn't attract the audiences you need to sell advertising. AND (this is a bigger point) music audiences tend to disdain advertising. Ask the folks at ad-supported music sites.

 

[cabradio]

A generation ago, they had no choice. So they'd sit through all kinds of crap to get to something they liked. Not the situation now. So "indie fans" don't listen to radio. That accounts for the 4% who don't listen, compared to the 96% who do. Personally, I'll give up 4% if it gets me 96%. I'm not saying that's how it works, but I was always taught that you don't program to music fans. They will never be happy with what you're doing.

At some point the goals of radio and music will be different. I've been to several music conferences in the last few weeks, and the industry seems to be moving away from the big monster music acts that attract large audiences. If that continues, it will be less is radio's interests to play music. Which gets us back to Holland's point at the start of this thread. If the RIAA is hell-bent on charging a percentage of radio revenue to stations that play music, and music is no longer attracting concentrated audiences any more, then there's simply no point in playing music on the radio. It costs you money, and doesn't attract the audiences you need to sell advertising. AND (this is a bigger point) music audiences tend to disdain advertising. Ask the folks at ad-supported music sites.

You are suggesting that 96% of people listens to radio for music? 96% of people listen to THE RADIO, not radio for music.

 

[TheBigA]

The success of shows like American Idol PROVE people want to hear something new and unique.

You're drawing a false conclusion. People watch Idol to vote. To make judgements. Most of the music they hear isn't new or unique. It's cover songs performed in very traditional ways. It's higher grade karaoke. That doesn't mean a great karaoke singer will be the next Frank Sinatra. But it's fun to vote and it makes the viewer feel involved and important.

And a lot of radio stations do the same thing. They do "pick it or flick it" features. Most are on the air. Some are online. A lot of it is based on the song, some of it is based on the artist. but the listeners like to be involved.

Are you really playing EVERYTHING your audience wants, or what you THINK they want?

Keep in mind the "audience" doesn't act as a unified mass. So you play percentages. You have a percentage that just wants to hear certain artists. Some who want to hear a certain style of music. Some who want to hear familiar favorites. And some who are open to new music, if it fits in with their favorites. So it's not as simple as doing what the listeners want. I feel I have access to every bit of information I need to know what the audience wants. But even then, I get surprised every now and then. That's what keeps you humble. Everyone who does what I do has a list of hits we missed.

If radio doesn't, then well, I guess there are plenty of McDonald's out there.

Well, no. There's really only ONE McDonalds, and it's doing very well by doing what radio does, and that's play the percentages. The fact that all the stations are next to each other makes competition tough. So you have three stations that play hamburgers, two that play cheeseburgers, two that play french fries, and a few more that fill out the menu. That's how you get the Top 10 rated stations in a market. The rest are Arbys, Hardies, and niche players. Advertising is based on who delivers the biggest bang for the buck, and if you play the niches, then you're probably not delivering the biggest audiences in town.

So TheBigA, are your REALLY paying attention to Indie artists at all? I doubt it.

Today, some of the biggest artists are on indie labels. In country, Taylor Swift is on an indie, and she had a hit out of the box. The Top 3 selling country albums are on indie labels (Taylor Swift, Rascal Flatts, Jason Aldean), and ironically, they're also the most-played artists now on the radio. So someone is paying attention to indie artists.

 

[TheBigA]

You are suggesting that 96% of people listens to radio for music? 96% of people listen to THE RADIO, not radio for music.

No I'm talking about the 4% who don't listen.

 

[cabradio]

My comment about McDonald's was that there are enough fast food places to employ those who lose their jobs in radio. You either adapt to the change, or don't. The choice is yours to make.

 

[cabradio]

No I'm talking about the 4% who don't listen.

You said:

Personally, I'll give up 4% if it gets me 96%.

Sounds like you're saying you'll give up 4% of indie music listeners to get 96% of label music listeners. Your 4% are not indie music listeners though. They are people that don't listen to radio at all, vs 96% of people that listen to radio sometimes. What format is not explained in those general statistics.

So, what you are saying is you don't care about indie listeners, because they can't possibly like something that the masses would like?

 

[JimmyJames]

"The rest are Arbys, Hardies, and niche players."

There's a viable point to be made that some of these niches are worth playing to, for the loyalty and awareness of their audience. Would I rather target the educated aware consumer who listens loyally, or someone who can punch out to the same music on another station when I go to spots and not feel like they missed anything?

 

[TheBigA]

So, what you are saying is you don't care about indie listeners, because they can't possibly like something that the masses would like?

I think you're placing your own agenda on what I'm saying.

 

[TheBigA]

"The rest are Arbys, Hardies, and niche players."

There's a viable point to be made that some of these niches are worth playing to, for the loyalty and awareness of their audience. Would I rather target the educated aware consumer who listens loyally, or someone who can punch out to the same music on another station when I go to spots and not feel like they missed anything?

Ultimately, that's a question you ask your advertisers. I target the people I can sell. If I can't sell them, or they hate advertising, then there's no point in programming to them.

Now if I'm in the subscription radio business, and I sell my content directly to listeners, then my whole approach is very different.

I think that's what a lot of this is about. People in the Future of Music Coalition like public and satellite radio. But their model is based on charging listeners for programming, rather than selling audience to advertisers. These are two approaches to the same business, both are available, and each have advantages and disadvantages. Niche programming works better when you charge the consumers directly for the content.

 

[gr8oldies]

There has always been an audience that claims not to like mainstream music, going back probably earlier than the 80s, but I can remember when "alternative" fans of Tears for Fears abandoned them like rats off a ship as soon as they got some mainstream success. I don't know whether or not today's indie audience is similar, but I suspect so.

We have so many threads on this board about "how to get back the 4%" when to do that would blow off the 96%. Everytime we talk on the oldies board about why we don't have 10000 song playlists and don't program to only geeks and collectors, it's the same discussion. The facts being most people who listened to music in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, whatever remember the top hits and not songs that made #39 for one week.

 

[cabradio]

So, what you are saying is you don't care about indie listeners, because they can't possibly like something that the masses would like?

I think you're placing your own agenda on what I'm saying.

Sorry, should have posed that as a better question, not a statement with a question mark. There is a question mark at the end...not that it changes the context in which you read it, but I did intend it as a question.

So, do you care about indie listeners, or do you feel the masses wouldn't like what indies like...and I'll add...on a regular basis?

 

[TheBigA]

So, do you care about indie listeners, or do you feel the masses wouldn't like what indies like...and I'll add...on a regular basis?

One thing I've learned in my time in radio is you can't generalize about an audience or what they like. Audiences don't act as a mass, they don't all do things the same way for the same reasons, and neither should I.