The new krth

[oldies76]

None of the folks I knew in the business thought badly of what Jay did at KRTH, 'cause it worked. It was the "deep oldies" crowd that moaned and groaned. Just as they do now.

And those "deep oldies" crowd are listeners that grew up with KRTH in the 70's and during the great programming days of the 80's before Jay butchered the playlist in the 90's with his 400 song playlist heavy on Motown and the British Invasion. Of course the crowd complained, since their 50's music and the deep playlists and specials from before were essentially taken away. The same thing is happening today, although probably not as noticeable, since you've said the cume of KRTH is over 1/2 Hispanics. They, unfortunately, would not have the same music depth for U.S. hits as people who grew up in the United States and actually heard the hits. But the ones who grew up here and craving for some of their favorites that are never played anymore, many of them are complaining...and it's not just the listeners on this board.

And I would have to agree with krth101 about his definition of an "Oh Wow" song. It makes sense that songs that were huge hits in the day but are not aired today would be considered "OhWows" or "lost hits" and songs that badly charted and never heard on radio from the beginning, are stiffs.

#8 "Love is Like Oxygen" by Sweet is an "Oh Wow", #73 "You're a Big Girl Now" by the Stylistics is a stiff.

 

[davideduardo]

And those "deep oldies" crowd are listeners that grew up with KRTH in the 70's and during the great programming days of the 80's before Jay butchered the playlist in the 90's with his 400 song playlist heavy on Motown and the British Invasion.

Those people would be too old to be of any interest to any station, not just KRTH.

...since you've said the cume of KRTH is over 1/2 Hispanics. They, unfortunately, would not have the same music depth for U.S. hits as people who grew up in the United States and actually heard the hits.

Most of the Hispanics who listen to KRTH are second generation and beyond. So they grew up in the US.

And any Hispanics who are first generation who listen to KRTH probably heard the same hits on the radio in Mexico and El Salvador and Puerto Rico and Colombia as were played here. For example, in 1985 of 21 FMs in Lima, Perú, 18 of them played only English language music.

But the ones who grew up here and craving for some of their favorites that are never played anymore, many of them are complaining...and it's not just the listeners on this board.

No, they are not.

 

[Thomps2525]

Yes they are. On the XM fan site, there are two threads devoted to KRTH. One began in 2007 when the station was starting to play some lower-charting songs. The other was started in 2013 when KRTH was starting to play 400 titles over and over and over and over and over.

http://xmfan.com/viewtopic.php?t=88117

http://xmfan.com/viewtopic.php?t=120994&start=0

 

[TheBigA]

On the XM fan site, there are two threads devoted to KRTH.

The interesting thing to me is that a lot of those people don't like what Sirius has become, and the various Sirius channels use a larger library than KRTH.

Sometimes, the memory can play tricks on you. Most of us have idealized memories from when we were younger.

 

[oldies76]

The interesting thing to me is that a lot of those people don't like what Sirius has become, and the various Sirius channels use a larger library than KRTH.

But Sirius / XM are not radio stations and are not programmed like one. The feel of hearing your favorites on the FM dial on a real radio station is more appealing than having to pay a monthly fee. I don't need to pay 12 bucks a month to hear my favorites, to hear repetition or to enjoy a deep playlist. Let free radio do that. They don't like Sirius, not because of the actual music, but because they feel a monthly charge isn't worth it. I felt the same in 2006 when I canceled my subscription.

 

[TheBigA]

The feel of hearing your favorites on the FM dial on a real radio station is more appealing than having to pay a monthly fee.

I agree that Sirius is not a radio station, and therefore isn't programmed like one. They don't have to meet demographic targets. Which means they can play a broader range of music than OTA. But the fact that they do what they do confirms (not that we need confirmation) that our music research is correct.

 

[Thomps2525]

Most of the Sirius XM music channels are commercial-free and therefore the programmers aren't obsessed with trying to attract a "younger demographic" the way FM radio stations are. But I wonder how many people have gotten a subscription to satellite radio because they were tired of FM stations' dinky playlists and constant repetition. I did---and, for me, the monthly charge is worth it. I can hear tens of thousands of oldies from as recently as 2013 and going as far back as the late 1920s. I can hear tens of thousands of songs that FM stations will never play again...and maybe never played at all. Mister oldies76 prefers "free radio." All I can say is: Free radio is worth every penny.

 

[AM FM listener]

But Sirius / XM are not radio stations and are not programmed like one. The feel of hearing your favorites on the FM dial on a real radio station is more appealing than having to pay a monthly fee. I don't need to pay 12 bucks a month to hear my favorites, to hear repetition or to enjoy a deep playlist. Let free radio do that. They don't like Sirius, not because of the actual music, but because they feel a monthly charge isn't worth it. I felt the same in 2006 when I canceled my subscription.

When you think about it, $12 a month is not that much compared to what people pay for other things regularly. For example, what does a Starbucks coffee habit run per month? What about parking fees around LA? Music is arguably one of the most important and enjoyable aspects of people's lives but people sure hate to pay for it.

 

[TheBigA]

I can hear tens of thousands of oldies from as recently as 2013 and going as far back as the late 1920s.

Not on the same channel.

 

[Unregistered]

SXM Price

Many people do not pay full price for SXM radio. Myself included. The last price I received was $25.00 for 5 months. It's not a lot of work to get this price!

 

[hm insulators]

I just went through the past 24 hours of WCBS-FM playlists and didn't find much "oh wow" material at all. Tony Orlando's "He Don't Love You" qualifies. Maybe Barry White's "I'm Gonna Love You Just a Little More." Billy Joel's "Scenes From an Italian Restaurant" wouldn't see the light of day on a classic hits station outside of New York City/Long Island, where Joel is God. I did notice two spins less than 12 hours apart (around 9 last night and around 7 this morning) for Club Nouveau's version of "Lean On Me." Maybe this was one of those songs that did better in New York than anywhere else, can't say I've ever heard it on any other classic hits station. Most are still playing the Bill Withers original.

I've heard "Scenes From an Italian Restaurant" on KOOL 94.5 here in Phoenix, of all places.

 

[LKellerIII]

When you think about it, $12 a month is not that much compared to what people pay for other things regularly. For example, what does a Starbucks coffee habit run per month? What about parking fees around LA? Music is arguably one of the most important and enjoyable aspects of people's lives but people sure hate to pay for it.

I find that listening to Sirius/XM is s-o-o-o-o much more satisfying that terrestrial radio due to the deeper play lists. And I like that the DJs are talk about the music more than regular FM jocks. But so far, I only partake of Sirius/XM when I'm in a rental car. I get your argument, but I'm too cheap and impatient to stand in a 5 minute line to pay $4 for coffee that's no better than I can make myself...unless I want a Frappucino.

If this were the pre-MP3 days, I would be paying for Sirius - $12 a month is nothing. But I'd rather play my own music with my own playlist - which is now up to about 1,400 songs. Needless to say, I have better taste than any program director. ; )

 

[TheBigA]

But I'd rather play my own music with my own playlist - which is now up to about 1,400 songs. Needless to say, I have better taste than any program director. ; )

You can tell yourself that, but you've never checked out the PD's personal collection. The difference is you're programming for an audience of one, and the PD programs to an audience of many. And because of that, it's fine-tuned to appeal to many, not just the few music lovers. Some stations run "the director's cut" on their web site, and that's a lot deeper. But you can't play deep cuts and still attract the size of audience you need to stay employed.

 

[Thomps2525]

Today I checked KRTH's playlist. I went to their website 'cause I no longer have any desire to actually listen to the station. It's more repetitious than at any time in its 42-year history. Several songs are played three or four times a day: Smooth, Sweet Dreams, Take On Me, Don't Stop Believin', Hotel California, Every Breath You Take, Don't You Forget About Me...and KRTH is still playing Brown Eyed Girl, which I consider to be the most burned-out overplayed hit in radio history.

TheBigA says "Radio companies spend lots of money developing new formats, new shows..." That may be so, but it doesn't matter because they all play the same few burned-out songs that everyone else is playing.

 

[TheBigA]

That may be so, but it doesn't matter because they all play the same few burned-out songs that everyone else is playing.

It doesn't matter, because the ratings are great.

 

[Thomps2525]

And do the ratings show how many people are actively listening, as opposed to the number who have KRTH on merely as "background noise" and aren't really paying attention to the music or the commercials?

 

[davideduardo]

And do the ratings show how many people are actively listening, as opposed to the number who have KRTH on merely as "background noise" and aren't really paying attention to the music or the commercials?

Just as advertisers understand that viewers get up to snack, pee and do other things during commercials on TV, radio advertisers know that not every commercial is heard with 100% attention. And they know that newspaper readers don't peruse every item on every page or even every page of those periodicals.

An effort was made just after the introduction of the PPM to create an "engagement" metric that showed the degree of attention put on different listening choices based on the amount and frequency of usage of a particular station. The panel created by Arbitron to advise on and evaluate the metric consisted of researchers from various broadcasters, some major advertisers and people from the buying side at agencies and buying services. We determined that agencies would not look with favor on a new metric and would, in many cases, just use "more numbers" to hammer down rates... and the initiative was abandoned.

So, the short answer is that advertisers know about different levels of engagement, they factor that into pricing models, and beyond that don't care.

 

[CTListener]

I guess that's why "your listen-at-work station" is such a popular positioner. People at work are probably the least engaged with the music playing in the background of any audience you can name, outside of maybe diners at a restaurant. Most of them couldn't name more than a couple of songs they heard during their 8-hour workday. Recall of ads probably wouldn't be much better. So I gather that the agencies are relying on subliminal impressions that will subconsciously guide the office listener to the advertised product or service? They must, because you'd think that engaged music listeners in home or car settings would be more likely to switch stations during stop sets rather than listen to the ads.

 

[Thomps2525]

I didn't read David Eduardo's comments. I went out to the kitchen to make a sandwich.

Am I correct in assuming that the PPMs show every minute that someone is listening to a particular station? And when a station begins one of those notorious eight- or nine-minute commercial breaks, the PPMs would show the number of listeners who immediately tune to another station? If there are "different levels of engagement" with advertisements, the number of people who change stations when a commercial break starts are showing zero engagement. Even if there are many who don't change the station, I can't believe too many advertisers are desirous of paying to be the final commercial in a nine-minute block. Who actively listens to commercials anyway?

 

[davideduardo]

I didn't read David Eduardo's comments. I went out to the kitchen to make a sandwich.

Shame on you. I am offended.

Am I correct in assuming that the PPMs show every minute that someone is listening to a particular station? And when a station begins one of those notorious eight- or nine-minute commercial breaks, the PPMs would show the number of listeners who immediately tune to another station? If there are "different levels of engagement" with advertisements, the number of people who change stations when a commercial break starts are showing zero engagement. Even if there are many who don't change the station, I can't believe too many advertisers are desirous of paying to be the final commercial in a nine-minute block. Who actively listens to commercials anyway?

The PPM encoder at "the source" (every different system has a different code.. the stream is separate from the OTA signal, etc) tries to place one tag every 4.5 seconds. Sometimes it can't, as the tag has to be masked by complete audio to be, itself, inaudible.

But, in general, the PPM "knows" minute by minute how people behave.

People do go away for stopsets, but far less than for a bad song.

There are multiple studies both from Arbitron itself and from folks like Coleman and Edison that show behaviour traits of PPM panelists during stopsets and during morning shows and during music segments. You can likely search for them and see that, since we know nobody but the GSM likes commercials, the audience loss at stopset time is far less than we would think it might be.