A new study from academia reinforces something successful programmers have known since the advent of top 40 radio in the 1950s: listeners prefer the hits. Conducted by Washington University’s Olin Business School, “The Same Old Song: The Power of Familiarity in Music Choice” finds consumers pick music they’re familiar with — even though they believe they’d prefer less familiar music.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Study proves listeners want hits, not deep cuts
- Thread starter Whiplash
- Start date
What about when a station breaks out a song you are familiar with but havent heard in ages. I love those cuts.
Help with defining some of the terminology in this discussion, and in the university report.
When people discuss this topic regarding CURRENT music I see the argument one way.
But in this discussion, it becomes obvious if you are applying the research to older music, to favorites, etc, then "hits" gets a bit different.
Now, I could well be the oldest participant in this thread. There are days when I would like to turn to a station for awhile that would bring me some "Big Band Sounds". (There is NOT a large demand for that genre from the radio audience today!) But if you are running a Sunday night nostalgia show and feeding my hunger, you are probably wise to stick with the songs that WERE hits in their day. Maybe the show host remembers being in Europe during WWII and has a favorite Glen Miller recording that most people have never heard. May be a great song, but if the geezers haven't heard it, they are likely to say: Forget that... give me "In the Mood".
Does that scenario match up with the way you read the academic report?
If you are in a programming situation where you would be playing songs from the 80s, play only what was truly a hit in the 80s... not the fringe stuff?
When people discuss this topic regarding CURRENT music I see the argument one way.
But in this discussion, it becomes obvious if you are applying the research to older music, to favorites, etc, then "hits" gets a bit different.
Now, I could well be the oldest participant in this thread. There are days when I would like to turn to a station for awhile that would bring me some "Big Band Sounds". (There is NOT a large demand for that genre from the radio audience today!) But if you are running a Sunday night nostalgia show and feeding my hunger, you are probably wise to stick with the songs that WERE hits in their day. Maybe the show host remembers being in Europe during WWII and has a favorite Glen Miller recording that most people have never heard. May be a great song, but if the geezers haven't heard it, they are likely to say: Forget that... give me "In the Mood".
Does that scenario match up with the way you read the academic report?
If you are in a programming situation where you would be playing songs from the 80s, play only what was truly a hit in the 80s... not the fringe stuff?
Not sure why my earlier post was deleted but, I am one that likes to listen to deep cuts. I believe this research is flawed and the proof is the abundance of niche channels and services found on the internet and satellite radio. It could be that typical radio listeners enjoy hearing the same 400 songs that are on 92.5 The Fox. I don't know.
All we ever get from our audience is that they HATE clear channel, they hate what corporate owners have done to radio and they hate the same songs being played over and over and they don't much care for today's formats being shoved down their throats.
I do believe it is totally flawed. What these groups never admit to is that Radio's Core listening audience is shrinking and address why. Innovation is what made radio take off. Lack of innovation is what is making listeners find other options!
I'll never bow down to Corporate ways. Suites suck and the only thing on their mind is serving the advertisers, not pleasing their audience!
I do believe it is totally flawed. What these groups never admit to is that Radio's Core listening audience is shrinking and address why. Innovation is what made radio take off. Lack of innovation is what is making listeners find other options!
I'll never bow down to Corporate ways. Suites suck and the only thing on their mind is serving the advertisers, not pleasing their audience!
Where was the study done? If it will play in Peoria it will play anywhere... Look at the west coast for example...KFOG SF does very well. Cumulus hasn't ruined it yet. It has better numbers than co-owned KSAN a classic rock station that's playing 400 tracks. KHUM Eureka, CA it's the top rated station in the market with a free form format. KMTT The Mountain in Seattle does very well. I agree this study has to be flawed for the reasons I just gave. It really depends on the market and the region. The #2 and #3 stations in Honolulu, HI is Hawaiian! I wonder how that would play in Peoria?
Sorry Nuts--- you have anecdotal evidence vs years and years of research--- is there a solid part of the audience that wants more variety? Sure!- but they want variety that THEY want-- not what you program--- Radio can never win the variety game (especially not today)
I will never forget my very first focus group--- I ask-- "what 's your favorite song" answer "My Girl"-- "how much is too much? How often would you like to hear it?"--answer---" maybe once an hour or so"... I've since seen that same answer in focus group after focus group over nearly 25 years.-- No! We are NOT going to play top hits every hour--- but if we rotate library top hits so they play every day, but in different hours and dayparts the rabid fans are happy and the casual fans dig it too.
Do I like My Girl? Sure! Am I sick of it? Nope--- not if my listeners aren't
When My airstaff complained about burn I gave them a tape of lost songs--- today, all you need to do is select "more variety" on IHeart Radio or Pandora--- or listen to your faves on You Tube--
If you have a transmitter you better find a core and play their hits (or find a wealthy underwriter who isn't smart enough to program a custom channel online)
I will never forget my very first focus group--- I ask-- "what 's your favorite song" answer "My Girl"-- "how much is too much? How often would you like to hear it?"--answer---" maybe once an hour or so"... I've since seen that same answer in focus group after focus group over nearly 25 years.-- No! We are NOT going to play top hits every hour--- but if we rotate library top hits so they play every day, but in different hours and dayparts the rabid fans are happy and the casual fans dig it too.
Do I like My Girl? Sure! Am I sick of it? Nope--- not if my listeners aren't
When My airstaff complained about burn I gave them a tape of lost songs--- today, all you need to do is select "more variety" on IHeart Radio or Pandora--- or listen to your faves on You Tube--
If you have a transmitter you better find a core and play their hits (or find a wealthy underwriter who isn't smart enough to program a custom channel online)
S
stevensonair
Guest
And with one flippant post, "partymarty" dismisses the donors and underwriters of public radio music stations as people who "aren't smart enough" to find their music elsewhere.
Marty, you're just another suit. Go away. We like to say on the air that we hang people like you. You don't have to have huge ratings and tons of money to please an audience. It's not all about ratings, it's not all about money. It's about serving the audience that you program to and making them happy. Make people happy and the money will come. If your theories are so wonderful and so perfect, how is it that you suits change your freekin' formats every (what seems like) 3 months? Because your theories work? Idiots!
The fact is, people are just dumb. Ask your study group what they like and don't like and then go back to your phones and emails and answer all of the complaints. INNOVATE or die. It's that simple. Your wonderful suit theories are killing radio and killing the dial. Now go back to your 20 songs and twirl your thumbs. Doesn't anyone care anymore. My how this world has changed.
The fact is, people are just dumb. Ask your study group what they like and don't like and then go back to your phones and emails and answer all of the complaints. INNOVATE or die. It's that simple. Your wonderful suit theories are killing radio and killing the dial. Now go back to your 20 songs and twirl your thumbs. Doesn't anyone care anymore. My how this world has changed.
^ I'd say that last reply was a bit out of line to partymarty.
Considering I spent 10+ years with an independent station, corporate radio does have its place - whether you like it or not.
Know what your listeners want, and play the hell out of it. If *you* don't like it, don't listen. It's that simple.
Considering I spent 10+ years with an independent station, corporate radio does have its place - whether you like it or not.
Know what your listeners want, and play the hell out of it. If *you* don't like it, don't listen. It's that simple.
mattsledge said:
Yeah Corporate radio does have its place. We just need a little less of it being they own everything. Might as well have the BBC here. The same song from coast to coast. Whatever. There is a place for mom and pop's as well. As a matter of fact, a lot more of them.
S
stevensonair
Guest
I don't dispute Marty's assertions about commercial radio.
I specifically take issue with his statement that underwriters who are "too stupid" to find their music online are what supports noncommercial broadcasters.
The demographics of noncommercial music radio - specifically, NPR music stations, are far from "stupid."
These people support the service because it's a diverse, localized blend of genres and artists they appreciate. I think it was tasteless of Marty to suggest noncomms are supported because of people's ignorance.
I specifically take issue with his statement that underwriters who are "too stupid" to find their music online are what supports noncommercial broadcasters.
The demographics of noncommercial music radio - specifically, NPR music stations, are far from "stupid."
These people support the service because it's a diverse, localized blend of genres and artists they appreciate. I think it was tasteless of Marty to suggest noncomms are supported because of people's ignorance.
- Status