Who decided that classic rock stations need only to play 400 tunes? Studies? Are these the same studies that told us listeners biggest turnoffs are commercial ads? Radio stations didn't take that advise because they have to survive. Maybe they should do the same with that study that says we need to play only 400 songs. Just think if we eliminated the 12 minutes of stopsets we could spin the hits ever faster. That's 4 more hits per hour.
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Study proves listeners want hits, not deep cuts
- Thread starter Whiplash
- Start date
I agree 100% with the last 3 to 4 posts from Rocknuts, Microbob etc. BUT you will have to have focus on the music.
Here's the other side of it, from a fresh article today. http://www.radioinfo.com/2013/07/29/bring-back-the-disc-jockey-2/
I say here here to this!
Here's the other side of it, from a fresh article today. http://www.radioinfo.com/2013/07/29/bring-back-the-disc-jockey-2/
I say here here to this!
1250WTAE said:I say here here to this!
Lots of disc jockeys out there. No shortage of people playing music on the radio. That's really a very different topic.
But I was really inspired by the national coverage given to Kidd Kraddick. One of his friends said in an obit how he had both the talent and the business sense to reach millions of people. That's the kind of DJ we need today. Someone who has the business sense of legends like Alan Freed or Dick Clark. Where are THEY? Where are the DJ/entrepreneurs who know that radio is a business? Who can become a partner with an owner, not just an employee? Perhaps Ryan Seacrest is one current example, but so many DJs hate him. Rick Dees was another example at one time. Wolfman Jack. Casey Kasem. What's so wrong about being famous? What's so wrong about taking your act national? The world has changed, and so has radio. Music isn't local, so why should radio? We need to look at this as a much bigger business than it is.
RockNuts! said: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.
And, Nuts...you're another guy who wants to prove that radio hasn't ever known what it was doing. And, you will have only success like the rest of the people who try this. You'll appeal to a small group of devoted listeners, and that's it.
Yes, radio should be about innovation. But, you don't reinvent the wheel. You improve it. You find what the masses want and give it to them. You go after the majority view, not the minority. And that is what people such as yourself don't ever seem to get.
294 million people listen to radio every week. That's not audience chump change. And most don't listen to public radio stations that play 10,000 song titles.
Is there room for both? Of course. And I do support what you do, because there's an audience for it. But, you don't have to compete for ratings as commercial stations do. That's the beauty of non-commercial radio. But, I would contend, if you took the lessons learned by commercial radio, add in an element of common sense "variety" to your programming and avoid the temptation to kill the goose with the golden egg by playing thousands of songs no one cares about or remembers (not saying you are, but I know some who do), a non-comm could get a big audience.
What I'm talking about programming wise is a lot of what the old WGRR used to do.
Do the "suits" miss the big picture sometimes? Absolutely. Some of these companies are so risk averse that they run scared of actually being different. But, then again, I suppose I'd be risk averse if I owed 40 billion dollars, too...It's the big money, and the big debt that's causing this, not so much the people in the business.
I suspect it'll catch up with the ones who deserve it in the end.
TheBigA said:ToddyO said:Fine - gimme the Middletown AM. Give me a year and let's see where it is. ;D
Probably in Middletown.
And still losing money in a year. It probably will take you 3 years to begin turn a profit, if that's even possible.
Just to clarify, ClassX only plays maybe one deep cut per hour. I supposed, just to clarify, what I should have said from the start is that listeners want variety and don't want the same burnt out songs played over and over as they have for, what, 40 years? I also guess that had I read and interpreted the thread title, I might have somewhat agreed. I do agree to some extent that listeners don't want Deep Cuts, wall to wall. But they do want variety. Our variety just happens to be huge.
RockNuts! said:I supposed, just to clarify, what I should have said from the start is that listeners want variety and don't want the same burnt out songs played over and over as they have for, what, 40 years?
How have you arrived at that conclusion? Did you do a study? How many listeners did you interview? Where was your study published, and how was it authenticated?
Well I found the study that started this discussion. I thought you might enjoy the first two paragraphs:
In a series of studies from Washington University's Olin Business School involving nearly 400 subjects, researchers found that people tended to agree that radio is too repetitive and that stations should play more new music, and that they get sick of listening to the same music on the radio.
Many of the subjects said that they had abandoned radio altogether for its lack of new music.
In a series of studies from Washington University's Olin Business School involving nearly 400 subjects, researchers found that people tended to agree that radio is too repetitive and that stations should play more new music, and that they get sick of listening to the same music on the radio.
Many of the subjects said that they had abandoned radio altogether for its lack of new music.
cardradio said:Many of the subjects said that they had abandoned radio altogether for its lack of new music.
What people say and what people do are often two different things. Lots of people say they want more quality programming on TV. Yet when we study their habits, they instead watch crap. Music habits are the same. They say they want new music. But when it comes on the radio, they turn the dial. If you go a little deeper in the article, that's what it says.
You're also confusing "new music" and "deep cuts." Not the same thing. Do people want more new music on oldies stations? I don't think so. Meanwhile, radio formats like CHR and country play a large percentage of new music. To be a trade reporter for Billboard or Mediabase, a radio station is required to play a minimum of 28% new music. So stations ARE playing a lot of new music.
Why should radio stations change what they're doing to appeal to people who've already abandoned them? If I'm a programmer, I'm targeting the people who listen, not complainers who don't.
I'm not confusing anything. All I did was copy and paste this 100% accurate study as it was called before.
TheBigA said:cardradio said:Many of the subjects said that they had abandoned radio altogether for its lack of new music.
What people say and what people do are often two different things. Lots of people say they want more quality programming on TV. Yet when we study their habits, they instead watch crap. Music habits are the same. They say they want new music. But when it comes on the radio, they turn the dial. If you go a little deeper in the article, that's what it says.
You're also confusing "new music" and "deep cuts." Not the same thing. Do people want more new music on oldies stations? I don't think so. Meanwhile, radio formats like CHR and country play a large percentage of new music. To be a trade reporter for Billboard or Mediabase, a radio station is required to play a minimum of 28% new music. So stations ARE playing a lot of new music.
Why should radio stations change what they're doing to appeal to people who've already abandoned them? If I'm a programmer, I'm targeting the people who listen, not complainers who don't.
cardradio said:I'm not confusing anything. All I did was copy and paste this 100% accurate study as it was called before.
No, you took a sentence out of context. And ignored the subject line. The subject here is deep cuts, not new music.
You and this study are 100% correct.
TheBigA said:cardradio said:I'm not confusing anything. All I did was copy and paste this 100% accurate study as it was called before.
No, you took a sentence out of context. And ignored the subject line. The subject here is deep cuts, not new music.
But, there's a big difference between playing 400 songs and, say...2,000 or more.
And playlist size depends on the format and the competitive situation in each individual market. When you have two or more stations in a competitive battle, the situation may require a tighter list to ensure when a person tunes to your station, they're hearing a hit.
If you're not in a competitive battle, you may open your list up a bit.
If you're a non-com and ratings don't enter into your consideration, you can also open your list.
On the LP-FM I've been running, there's 550 songs in "rotation", but we operate out of a "universe" of over 1,300. The non playlist songs get "sprinkled" in once or twice an hour...three to four times an hour on the weekend. But those songs are all familiar hits that have been tested and played over the years, so there's no stiffs there, no "B" sides, no "this was never a hit, but I like it, so I'm gonna play it". And it's working for us. We're over 100 underwriters in a tiny community. But, we play the hits. That approach is what worked for WGRR and its programmers, as well as a couple of stations I programmed and worked for, though I may be over simplifying it a bit to keep the description understandable for a non-broadcaster.
And I've found what Big A says to also be true. Ask a person if radio is too repetitive, they'll often say yes. Test 1,000 songs in a potential format. And once you get down past around 450 or so, it becomes hard, almost impossible to find a song that meets the criteria that makes it "playable". Either the burn score is too high, or the fit score, or else the song doesn't meet a high enough "likeability" standard with your target listener.
If this language is all greek to some of you and you'd like to know more about what all this is, e-mail me here. I'll be glad to answer your question.
McDonald's can tell you the number of pickles that go on a Big Mac, why that number and not another. How? They researched it among people who prefer McDonald's over other fast food chains.
Same with radio. It's called "broad-casting" And commercial stations are trying to get the largest number of people to tune in as they can. You do it by finding a common denominator of songs that most everyone likes. But, you have to reject the songs only a few people like.
Now, can you mess with that a bit for "variety"? Yes, if you have an experienced programmer with a good ear that will keep a disciplined approach to the size of the list. But, it's also true most of your bigger companies don't want to take that chance.
And playlist size depends on the format and the competitive situation in each individual market. When you have two or more stations in a competitive battle, the situation may require a tighter list to ensure when a person tunes to your station, they're hearing a hit.
If you're not in a competitive battle, you may open your list up a bit.
If you're a non-com and ratings don't enter into your consideration, you can also open your list.
On the LP-FM I've been running, there's 550 songs in "rotation", but we operate out of a "universe" of over 1,300. The non playlist songs get "sprinkled" in once or twice an hour...three to four times an hour on the weekend. But those songs are all familiar hits that have been tested and played over the years, so there's no stiffs there, no "B" sides, no "this was never a hit, but I like it, so I'm gonna play it". And it's working for us. We're over 100 underwriters in a tiny community. But, we play the hits. That approach is what worked for WGRR and its programmers, as well as a couple of stations I programmed and worked for, though I may be over simplifying it a bit to keep the description understandable for a non-broadcaster.
And I've found what Big A says to also be true. Ask a person if radio is too repetitive, they'll often say yes. Test 1,000 songs in a potential format. And once you get down past around 450 or so, it becomes hard, almost impossible to find a song that meets the criteria that makes it "playable". Either the burn score is too high, or the fit score, or else the song doesn't meet a high enough "likeability" standard with your target listener.
If this language is all greek to some of you and you'd like to know more about what all this is, e-mail me here. I'll be glad to answer your question.
McDonald's can tell you the number of pickles that go on a Big Mac, why that number and not another. How? They researched it among people who prefer McDonald's over other fast food chains.
Same with radio. It's called "broad-casting" And commercial stations are trying to get the largest number of people to tune in as they can. You do it by finding a common denominator of songs that most everyone likes. But, you have to reject the songs only a few people like.
Now, can you mess with that a bit for "variety"? Yes, if you have an experienced programmer with a good ear that will keep a disciplined approach to the size of the list. But, it's also true most of your bigger companies don't want to take that chance.
Jason Roberts said:But, it's also true most of your bigger companies don't want to take that chance.
Nobody wants to take that chance.
I was just at a concert a few days ago by a major star, and every one of his songs was a hit. He knows if he stops and plays an album cut or an unfamiliar song, the audience will go out for a beer or bathroom break. He doesn't want that to happen. So he keeps the show upbeat and hit-filled. That's the same approach radio takes.
Jason Roberts said:But those songs are all familiar hits that have been tested and played over the years, so there's no stiffs there, no "B" sides, no "this was never a hit, but I like it, so I'm gonna play it".
Although I agree most of those running around trying to push B-sides on people fall flat, every now and then there is someone who has a good musical ear for this genre. Chuck-O comes to mind ... his various B-side shows over the years always seemed to bring some very listenable music to the table.
TheBigA said:RockNuts! said:I supposed, just to clarify, what I should have said from the start is that listeners want variety and don't want the same burnt out songs played over and over as they have for, what, 40 years?
How have you arrived at that conclusion? Did you do a study? How many listeners did you interview? Where was your study published, and how was it authenticated?
It was authenticated by our audience who tells us this over and over!
TheBigA said:cardradio said:Many of the subjects said that they had abandoned radio altogether for its lack of new music.
What people say and what people do are often two different things. Lots of people say they want more quality programming on TV. Yet when we study their habits, they instead watch crap. Music habits are the same. They say they want new music. But when it comes on the radio, they turn the dial. If you go a little deeper in the article, that's what it says.
Big A how did you authenticate this statement? How do you know this?
RockNuts! said:It was authenticated by our audience who tells us this over and over!
Of course they do. That's why they're your audience.
But you don't have the scientific data from non-listeners to be able to broaden their views to others.
So your information is restricted to people who listen to you, not anyone else.
RockNuts! said:Big A how did you authenticate this statement? How do you know this?
Actual scientific studies tracking what people do vs. what they say.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.