Study proves listeners want hits, not deep cuts. 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
R
Rallen1st
Guest
Study is quite interesting - Its a pretty quick read sorry don't have access to the url. But one thing I take away from the study is its measuring people's selection when choosing from a list a songs. Of course in that context its human nature to go with the familiar - why do you think Arbitron's diary method was so screwed up - people just put down the radio station they remembered or were familiar with and not necessarily listening to. I'm wondering if in the study was done in the context where in a radio listening setting when the only real control a listener has is the tuning knob or on/off button if the very familiar vs the not so familiar would have the same response.
Very compelling argument, and it bolsters a theory that programmers like to play music that they consider to be safe. Gone are they days when disc jockeys actually had a say in what records they could play (due largely to the Payola scandals.) I've also thought that programmers should take more risks. Sadly, in this day of iTunes and mp3s, we can pick and choose what they are promoting and rarely go for album tracks. There are a lot of great songs that have gone unheard over the years.
One interesting experiment in breaking a song happened 25 years ago (has it been that long?) when "Soldier of Love" became a huge comeback hit for Donny Osmond. According to Wikipedia:
"Fearing that the public were not going to buy a new Donny Osmond record, his label decided to release the single with no indication of who the artist was, and radio stations advertised it as being from a 'mystery artist.' It gained in popularity and helped send the song to #2 on the Billboard Hot 100 on its 8th week in the Top 40."
I've always thought that this was a great idea, and that more stations ought to take risks like this.
One interesting experiment in breaking a song happened 25 years ago (has it been that long?) when "Soldier of Love" became a huge comeback hit for Donny Osmond. According to Wikipedia:
"Fearing that the public were not going to buy a new Donny Osmond record, his label decided to release the single with no indication of who the artist was, and radio stations advertised it as being from a 'mystery artist.' It gained in popularity and helped send the song to #2 on the Billboard Hot 100 on its 8th week in the Top 40."
I've always thought that this was a great idea, and that more stations ought to take risks like this.
They ask, "Do you like 'Brown Eyed Girl?'"
They don't ask, "Would you like to hear 'Brown Eyed Girl' every day for the rest of your life?"
They don't ask, "Would you like to hear 'Brown Eyed Girl' every day for the rest of your life?"
F.M.Hertz said:
The words "like to play" imply that this is a personal decision. It's not. It's a job. Programmers play music they believe the audience will not tune out. That typically means familiar music. The object is to make it scientific, not subjective.
F.M.Hertz said:
As you suggest, in that time, money became a motivating factor, not risk, good music, or audience preference.
Of course, the problem is that good music is subjective. So the goal is to find music that tests well, which means is acceptable to most people. Not just one DJ.
F.M.Hertz said:
It really depends on the format. If you're talking about Top 40, a station takes a risk with every new song they add. That's what the format and the audience demands. On the other hand, a classic hits or oldies station is less likely to play an album cut by a marginal artist because the audience is expecting HITS.
Rallen1st said:
You make a good point, and those studies also have been done with pretty much the same results. The real test is trying a song on the air and watching PPM real time reaction. That can tell you pretty quickly how the audience responds to a song.
While research almost always indicates that listeners prefer familiar music, the research is often set up to achieve that result.
But the more telling answer is that stations that play the most familiar music usually get the highest ratings. I've always found it interesting, however, that country stations defy that logic by being current-driven, and while some CHR principles apply to the format (create familiarity through repetition), it's not a 30-song format.
But the more telling answer is that stations that play the most familiar music usually get the highest ratings. I've always found it interesting, however, that country stations defy that logic by being current-driven, and while some CHR principles apply to the format (create familiarity through repetition), it's not a 30-song format.
Individuals want deep cuts - the ones they like. With precious few exceptions, everyone's deep cuts are different.
For example, one of mine is "Black Pepper Will Make You Sneeze" by Roy Lee Johnson, but I'm sure you've never
heard of it, and I wouldn't want to inflict it on an audience.
Radio stations program to groups, not to individuals. When you've got half a million people listening, even if they
all prefer your radio station, it's hard to find enough songs that they all agree on and are popular enough to merit
the airplay.
This is why music is carefully chosen, why the DJs don't select their own songs, and why free-form radio is on the
non-commercial portion of the band, where it belongs.
C.
For example, one of mine is "Black Pepper Will Make You Sneeze" by Roy Lee Johnson, but I'm sure you've never
heard of it, and I wouldn't want to inflict it on an audience.
Radio stations program to groups, not to individuals. When you've got half a million people listening, even if they
all prefer your radio station, it's hard to find enough songs that they all agree on and are popular enough to merit
the airplay.
This is why music is carefully chosen, why the DJs don't select their own songs, and why free-form radio is on the
non-commercial portion of the band, where it belongs.
C.
Parttimer said:
Country as a format is very artist driven. So while country radio is as currents-based as CHR, the majority of the currents are by familiar artists. Thus, you get someone like Luke Bryan who has a bunch of hits, and every single released flies to #1 in less than 14 weeks. While there are lots of new artists who can't buy a spin. That's how country radio stays familiar.
cingram said:
Nobody is advocating free-form radio. Maybe expanding a playlist from 300 tracks to 320 wouldn't cause a classic hits station to melt.
Boss Radio said:
Probably not. 3WS is over 300 songs. Bob is also over 300. The new WZUM is definitely over 300. But there's
a point where you're just not playing songs that enough people like. That number varies by format, and also by
the competitive situation, which to a certain extent dictates how many chances you take.
C.
cingram said:
Or the time between the songs people like is longer. They have to wait longer to hear one of their favorites. That's as bad as not hearing them at all. They want what they want, and they want it now. On demand has made it even more imperative that you play the hits more frequently. And if you think the people in radio like it, you're wrong.
cingram said:
Once again, it depends on the format. For some formats, "just being a jukebox" works great. At the same time, radio as a whole still operates with lots of on-air talent. Maybe not at all stations, in all markets or formats, but I hear a lot of human voices on the radio. I hear none on Pandora.
The reality is that while there are other platforms for more personalized music delivery, the user has to do some work, provide personal information, and sometimes pay a fee. The user needs some form of connection, and that also requires a fee. Sure some people have the income and the love of music to pay for these things. But most people don't. Radio is in the business of appealing to MOST people, and that's why after ten years of increased media competition, OTA radio is still for the most part remarkably healthy.
TheBigA said:
Music has never been easier or cheaper to personalize than it is now. That, combined with an ever-increasing
number of options and a falling away of the youngest generation from terrestrial radio while the oldest people
(those listening to AM radio, for example) die off, is going to spell trouble in the days ahead. Like network TV
it probably will be a long slow decline, a gradual erosion of listeners, but it's impossible to read the tea leaves
and not see it coming.
C.
TheBigA said:
The key word is time AND money... under-25's will spend lots of time, but very little money (and it's true of their lives in general, and it's a tsunami that's going to change our economy forever). And they don't listen to terrestrial radio, nor are they going to start listening.
- Status