• 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

The pryer Oldies format

Re: Enthusiasm or ignorance?

> > Please don't question my passion and enthusiasm for Radio.
>
> I'm not saying this is necessarily true in your case, but
> maybe some people got knocked around a little bit too hard
> in that hard-knocks world of radio, and when someone like
> Mike comes along they see a little bit of themselves in him,
> they see a little bit of what they used to be like, and they
> remember some of the idealism that they once had.

I do not see any idealism in Mike´s posting. All I see is ignorance of the reality of radio... a reality that has existed for at least as long as Top 40 radio has existed. Since the first Top 40 station dates to August of 1952, that means 3 years over a half-century!

I began in radio not quite that far back. I was enthusiastic. I looked for every opportunity to hang around a radio station, so I could learn from pros. I took coffee, cleaned toilets, filed albums. And I was able to talk to the PD, the chief engineer, the announcers.

I hung in the lobby of WLS to be able to talk to Art Roberts and Sam Holman and Dick Biondi, among others. I went to WABC, KBTR, KFWB, KEWB, KOBY, WHK, WTAC and other Top 40 stations when I could. In each, I tried to learn something about the craft of radio, just as an apprentice does in a trade.

It was not my mission to trash everything being done in radio. I did not know how to do radio, and I was aware of it. I read Broadcasting and Sponsor from cover to cover. I studied for the First Phone license.

Fortuitously, I was able to intern at a large cluster in a market of 10 million, where I was told, "you don´t speak unless spoken to and you do what you are told to do. In exchange, you get to be here." I learned more.

A year later, just before his death, I met Todd Storz, the inventor of Top 40. I did not tell him how wrong playing only 40 songs over and over was. i asked him how it was done, and why. Since I was 17, and not a competitor, he told me... for several hours on a visit to WQAM in Miami, one of the great Top 40 stations of the US.

Mike tears down and rants against the ways that thousands of us have discovered work to make stations part of our listeners´ lives. I was a radio geek for many years, and all I wanted to do was be inside a radio station. But I respected the craft, and realized that individual tastes were overridden by the collective taste of our listeners... in my longest station stay, at an R/B station where we were very clear on who did and did not listen and what they wanted.

The hundreds of thousands who have worked in radio over the last 5 decades can not be all wrong just because Mike thinks some obscure garage band from Ashtabula that cut a tune in ´66 deserves play today.

Bill Drake, Todd Storz, Gordon McLendon, Mike Joseph, Buzz Bennett, Ron Jacobs, John Kluge, Scott Shannon, Jack McCoy, Paul Drew, Chuck Blore, Lee Abrams, Kent Burkhart, Rick Shaw, and many others were and are my idols. Even the odd ones like Max Richmond, Don Burden, and Richard Eaton were pieces of my radio lore.

Don´t tear down the foundations of radio. Learn from the past. Playing junk tunes no one wants to hear is hardly reinventing radio... it is prostituting it for the sake of one´s ego gratification and self-satisfaction. It is flipping the middle finger to the listener, saying, ¨you will listen to what I want.¨


: But then
> they learned some hard, cruel lessons along the way, things
> didn't work out as they had hoped, and now they for whatever
> reason feel compelled to try and bring him down as hard as
> they were once brought down.

Translation: they learned listeners did not give a crap about our personal taste, and wanted to hear what they liked all along.

> I don't know, I may be a fool, but I've been fighting
> what I consider to be a "Good Fight" for years now, and I'm
> not about to give up. No ones given me a chance yet but I
> believe in Lance Armstrong and I believe in miracles, and
> someday someone somewhere is going to give me an opportunity
> to really make a difference in this business.

Pardon me, but that whole Lance Armstrong thing sounds like something out of Little Mermaid. Maybe it is the effect of having Disney 4 blocks down the street from me... but when the artificial smoke clears and the pretty fish swim away, radio is a business. we exist by giving listeners what they want, causing many of them to come to us if we do it right... and then we sell advertising. If we do it wrong, or put our egos in front of the listener needs, we generally get s---tcanned and are out of a gig. Usually, it takes about one of these cannings to make you realize that this is not a game, it is not a pure art form, and it is a business.

> "You may say
> I'm a dreamer/But I'm not the only one". And yes, Oldies
> Cat, "I hope someday you join us"!
>

Oh, my gawd. A John Lennon quote. Pardon my cynicism, but you definitely are dreaming. Myself, I recognize some of the stations I deal with are worth upwards of $400 to %500 million, and I treat the investment and our listeners with dignity and respect... and realism.

I'm still a radio geek. I am enthusiastic about radio... I love it!
 
Re: Getting "real" about radio.

It is too bad that new owners must have to come up with so much money. Why? It is not the hardware. Pirates can start a station without a hitch.

It is the bureaucratic nightmare of getting Big Brother's approval in Washington. If the FCC did no more than keep one broadcast from not interfering with another, that would be fine, but there is so much more. Music lovers and lovers of radio are priced out of the market. The few who want to go through the ordeal have to borrow at a high rate of interest.

The whole process gives us non-creative mediocre radio as anyone can hear when he turns on his radio.

This is wrong and it must someday be changed.


>That would make it worse. Since small operators would be far riskier than big ones, the rates at which owners could borrow would be 6 to 8 points over prime. This would make it necessary to get 40% or better margins to take care of debt service. It would also make operators go with thevery safe, growing formats... and ones on the downtrend like oldies would never be programmed.
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
Re: Getting "real" about radio.

> It is too bad that new owners must have to come up with so
> much money. Why? It is not the hardware. Pirates can
> start a station without a hitch.

Only because they think they can disobey the laws of physics. Spotting a "free channel" in one location does not guarantee that the total coverage area, even of a pirate, will not interfere with another station in its protected coverage contour.

Pirates, with cheap equipment, are not a good example. Take a typical FM in LA. Dual STLs, three transmitters on Mt. Wilson into three antennas, two towers, generator and solar source. Studios, rent, insurance, permits, EPA statements, professional gear... several million. And that is just for a rebuild.
>
> It is the bureaucratic nightmare of getting Big Brother's
> approval in Washington.

Most stations in large markets were approved decades ago, for very little cost. The thing is, the spectrum holds no more stations... at least, no more decent signaled ones. So you have to buy one. If you are making a million a year profit, as you might in a medium market, you will not give up that income cheaply. You will want about 20 times the cash flow for the station... which is cheap, considering that the average dividend paying stock yeilds less than 2%. So $20 million or so... in a market like Fresno or Birmingham. Go to LA, where some stations cash flor $30 million and you can not get one of these for less than $350 to $400 million now.

The same applys for any cash producing business, whether it is a gas station or a radio station.

> If the FCC did no more than keep
> one broadcast from not interfering with another, that would
> be fine, but there is so much more.

That is their basic job. And that is why there can mbe very few new stations on the existing spectrum.

> Music lovers and lovers
> of radio are priced out of the market.

So am I, and I have been in this for over 40 years. I don't want to take the risk, endanger my capital and have to work even longer hours. And banks will not finance single stations any more... even at high rates.

> The few who want to
> go through the ordeal have to borrow at a high rate of
> interest.

This is because banks loan money based on risk. Radio staitons have limited forclosable assets. Banks are not the FCC, and it is not the FCC's or radio's fault the system works this way. Money producing businesses command steep prices. Good stocks (which are fractions of ownership, too) command higher PE ratios than bad ones.
>
> The whole process gives us non-creative mediocre radio as
> anyone can hear when he turns on his radio.

How banks loan money and how the FCC constrols interference has nothing to do with it.
>
> This is wrong and it must someday be changed.

There is no sentiment in DC or in the industry that banks are causing radio to be less creative.

In fact, creativity under consolidation may be benefited. formerly, radio emplyees sledom had benefits, job security or a career growth path. Today, you can grow in the same company, often without moving from market to market. Don't always think about the comapnies (which are investor owned, mostly by mutual and retirement funds) but in the staff, which for the first time receives tratment like they would get in other indyustries. I did not even have insurance for my first 11 years in radio!
 
Re: Getting "real" about radio.

David, I appreciate your detailed answer.

To this point, I think that if a radio station, or any other business, is in a highly leveraged position, payment of interest will take priority, therefore, the station or business will be less creative and go for the tried and true options.

Creativity has a high payoff when it is successful, but It has a risk of failure. If the interest is not paid, then the station or business is in default to the creditors. I don't think many will want to be creative and risk missing an interest payment.

The whole process gives us non-creative mediocre radio as
> anyone can hear when he turns on his radio.

How banks loan money <P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
Re: Getting "real" about radio.

> David, I appreciate your detailed answer.
>
> To this point, I think that if a radio station, or any other
> business, is in a highly leveraged position, payment of
> interest will take priority, therefore, the station or
> business will be less creative and go for the tried and true
> options.

This applies to smaller operators with higher interest rates and limited options. Larger operators can acquire stations via merger and equity transactions. For example, Clear Channel has a very low debt to equity ratio, well in line with leaders in American business and industry. Some companies, like the old Hispanic Broiadcasting, had no debt at all after consolidation.
>
> Creativity has a high payoff when it is successful, but It
> has a risk of failure. If the interest is not paid, then the
> station or business is in default to the creditors. I don't
> think many will want to be creative and risk missing an
> interest payment.

The big companies are not worried about this. It is the small ones that can not use equity and merger for acquisitions. So the small operators tend to be the most conservative and least experimental.
 
Re: great radio

> Ah, but the creativity is in the blend, the mix, the jocks,
> the promotions, the imaging, the whole station. It is the
> difference between boards in a lumberyard and a beautiful
> house. The house is still made of the basic, sound, seasoned
> and seald lumber... but it is in the putting together that
> it ecomes magic.
>
> Not playing the songs listeners want to hear is the same as
> custom building a house for a family, and then painting it a
> color the do not like, removing the toilets, and putting the
> kitchen in the attic. After very little time, the house will
> be remodeled or changed for a new one.
>
> The only possibility besides giving listeners the songs they
> want is giving listeners songs they don't want. If I order
> chocolate at the Baskin Robbins, and they give me
> strawberry, I refuse to take it and pay for it. If they
> always do this, I stop going back.
>
> People come to a station in the expectation of hearing what
> they like, not what they don't like and what they are not
> familiar with. I have been fortunate to have competitors who
> do not understand this, and hope to have many more. Judging
> by the folks posting on this thread, I have an easy career
> ahead of me.

Not only will you someday eat your words, David, but Baskin-Robbins will say sorry, our mistake, no charge for that, and so you'll give it a try and say, "Hey, you know what? I had forgotten how good strawberry tasted!" -- and you'll eat that ice cream, too. And not only that, but it'll even become your new favorite flavor!!!
 
Re: Enthusiasm or ignorance?

> Don´t tear down the foundations of radio. Learn from the
> past. Playing junk tunes no one wants to hear is hardly
> reinventing radio... it is prostituting it for the sake of
> one´s ego gratification and self-satisfaction. It is
> flipping the middle finger to the listener, saying, ¨you
> will listen to what I want.¨

Wow. Is it possible to believe that by offering something different to listeners than the songs that they've already heard literally millions of times, you're trying to help them more than you're trying to help yourself? Is that so beyond the realm of possibility? I'd appreciate your limiting your response to this question only, David -- I know how you like to write a book sometimes!
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by jakej on 09/07/05 03:30 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Enthusiasm

But radio is about FULFILLING EXPECTATION, not convincing them they should like what you're doing.

Understand, your view and perspective of radio is not the same as normal, everyday, NORMAL radio listeners. If you're in radio or a radio junkie on this board, you do not use nor view radio the same way everyday listeners do, therefore making it impossible to have a totally objective, non-biased viewpoint.

"Different" is one thing-- "different" that listeners really want to hear is almost always another.

>
> Wow. Is it possible to believe that by offering something
> different to listeners than the songs that they've already
> heard literally millions of times, you're trying to help
> them more than you're trying to help yourself? Is that so
> beyond the realm of possibility? I'd appreciate your
> limiting your response to this question only, David -- I
> know how you like to write a book sometimes!
>
 
blind eye

see- it's statements like this that reveal your total naiveté. You assume that because some song was once on a chart and that in it's day a few people liked it that the masses are hungering for it today.

They ain't.

> Not only will you someday eat your words, David, but
> Baskin-Robbins will say sorry, our mistake, no charge for
> that, and so you'll give it a try and say, "Hey, you know
> what? I had forgotten how good strawberry tasted!" -- and
> you'll eat that ice cream, too. And not only that, but it'll
> even become your new favorite flavor!!!
>
 
Re: Getting "real" about radio.

> >
> > You should really live IN the market to understand. I
> don't
> > think you can get THE WHOLE picture just by a couple of
> > numbers. No matter how small, if its real local, it will
> > make money, and lots of it.
>
> No it won't. I was in charge of an AM and FM in Lake City,
> FL in the late 80's. We had losts of local programming,
> including a morning news and info block, one at noon, one at
> 6 and all the local HS sports.
>
> Along came 80-90 and gave the market, which supported 5
> stations, a total of 10. The new ones were satellite
> programmed, and sold for very cheap. No one would buy the
> community stations (ours and the other heritage broadcaster
> from Live Oak). revenues dipped, since 10 signals now
> divided what was just an OK existence for 5.
>
> The HS started asking for rights to the game. The city
> officials who appeared on the morning shows said they could
> not do it any more, as it was unfair to the new stations.
>
> We had to sell, at a loss, after 5 years of trying... and
> the community lost its localized programming.
>
> From the 50's through the last finacial surveys int he 90's,
> half of all US stations did not make money. Most were in
> smaller markets.
>
> > Thats if radio is one of the
> > only "local options". There are other choices to advertise
>
> > on, but in this market, radio is a big way to promote your
>
> > business. In fact, stations in unrated markets can make
> > quite a bit of money if it is the only local station in
> town
> > and the area has enough businesses that want to advertise.
>
>
> There are very few of these single service markets. And most
> have a plethora of signals from every adjacent county, too.
>
> >
>
> > > Stations make mony by pleasing listeners. The more
> > listeners
> > > pleased, the more money made. Very simple.
> > >
> >
> > True, but there are stations, according to ratings, that
> > have a mediocre(sp) amount of listeners, but bill very
> well.
> > PLJ in New York is an example. Cash cow, but low ratings.
> >
>
> No, it has high ratings... where they matter. In fact, its
> AQH in the target demo is among the top 25 stations in the
> entire US.
>

Never knew that, interesting information. I still don't understand this though: there are stations with horrible ratings (PLJ must have been an incorrect example) but are still around, just because they make lots of money and that they target a popular group of people advertisers are interested in. Can you explain this to me?<P ID="signature">______________
The Place for the Latest Happenings in Radio
www.freewebs.com/radiostuffandnews
</P>
 
The Listeners

> But radio is about FULFILLING EXPECTATION, not convincing
> them they should like what you're doing.
>
> Understand, your view and perspective of radio is not the
> same as normal, everyday, NORMAL radio listeners. If you're
> in radio or a radio junkie on this board, you do not use nor
> view radio the same way everyday listeners do, therefore
> making it impossible to have a totally objective, non-biased
> viewpoint.
>
> "Different" is one thing-- "different" that listeners really
> want to hear is almost always another.
>
> >
> > Wow. Is it possible to believe that by offering
> something
> > different to listeners than the songs that they've already
>
> > heard literally millions of times, you're trying to help
> > them more than you're trying to help yourself? Is that so
> > beyond the realm of possibility? I'd appreciate your
> > limiting your response to this question only, David -- I
> > know how you like to write a book sometimes!
> >
>

Its ok to offer something different to the listeners, but if the ratings are good, $$$ is coming in, and the listeners are happy, why change it? They may not mind hearing their favorite song 1000 times.
<P ID="signature">______________
The Place for the Latest Happenings in Radio
www.freewebs.com/radiostuffandnews
</P>
 
Listeners

But even "something different" should be music that fits the station's goals and vision. Funny thing is, most Oldies stations have shared somewhere around the top 250-350 songs for almost 20 years and few REAL RADIO LISTENERS got tired of it most of that time. You always have to grow and evolve but there's evolution that makes sense AND there's change for the sake of change--they are two very different animals.

>
> Its ok to offer something different to the listeners, but if
> the ratings are good, $$$ is coming in, and the listeners
> are happy, why change it? They may not mind hearing their
> favorite song 1000 times.
>
 
Re: Getting "real" about radio.

>
> Never knew that, interesting information. I still don't
> understand this though: there are stations with horrible
> ratings (PLJ must have been an incorrect example) but are
> still around, just because they make lots of money and that
> they target a popular group of people advertisers are
> interested in. Can you explain this to me?
>

The classic case is WFAN, sports, in NY. Never much over 15th, but about 4th in billing. It is a good example, because it delivers very efficiently 15-44 or 25-49 men, a very desirable demo for many advertisers who want nothing else. In other words, in that demo, the station is a major factor.

12+ is not used for sales. Ad cmapaigns may be as specific as "Hispanic Females 25-34" and the efficiency of the buy is measured against the delivery of that demo. In other words, any audience a staiton may have outside thed target demo is not taken into consideration as the advertiser has a strict product profile.
 
Re: Enthusiasm or ignorance?

> > Don´t tear down the foundations of radio. Learn from the
> > past. Playing junk tunes no one wants to hear is hardly
> > reinventing radio... it is prostituting it for the sake of
>
> > one´s ego gratification and self-satisfaction. It is
> > flipping the middle finger to the listener, saying, ¨you
> > will listen to what I want.¨
>
> Wow. Is it possible to believe that by offering something
> different to listeners than the songs that they've already
> heard literally millions of times, you're trying to help
> them more than you're trying to help yourself? Is that so
> beyond the realm of possibility? I'd appreciate your
> limiting your response to this question only, David -- I
> know how you like to write a book sometimes!

When stations do music testing, they test way, way beyond the songs they are actually playing, especially on formats where no new music is coming in to refresh the sound.

The basic premise is that listeners, by whatever testing method is used, are asked to grade the songs based on "how much they would like to hear the song on the radio today."

Songs are ranked, and those that have significant negatives are eliminated. In other words, songs many or most people would NOT like to hear on the radio are not put on the radio.

The songs or types of songs mentioned earlier in the thread are songs that will get ver low scores, indicating that most listeners would tune out if they heard them. The object being to keep listeners, not to have them go away.

Songs that got play in 1967 were not necessarily hits then. And no song is necessarily still a hit today. The job of a station is to find the widest variety of songs that people want to hear, or they will lose audience.
>
 
Re: Enthusiasm or ignorance?

> > Don´t tear down the foundations of radio. Learn from the
> > past. Playing junk tunes no one wants to hear is hardly
> > reinventing radio... it is prostituting it for the sake of
>
> > one´s ego gratification and self-satisfaction. It is
> > flipping the middle finger to the listener, saying, ¨you
> > will listen to what I want.¨
>
> Wow. Is it possible to believe that by offering something
> different to listeners than the songs that they've already
> heard literally millions of times, you're trying to help
> them more than you're trying to help yourself? Is that so
> beyond the realm of possibility? I'd appreciate your
> limiting your response to this question only, David -- I
> know how you like to write a book sometimes!

When stations do music testing, they test way, way beyond the songs they are actually playing, especially on formats where no new music is coming in to refresh the sound.

The basic premise is that listeners, by whatever testing method is used, are asked to grade the songs based on "how much they would like to hear the song on the radio today."

Songs are ranked,
 
Re: great radio

>
> Not only will you someday eat your words, David, but
> Baskin-Robbins will say sorry, our mistake, no charge for
> that, and so you'll give it a try and say, "Hey, you know
> what? I had forgotten how good strawberry tasted!" -- and
> you'll eat that ice cream, too. And not only that, but it'll
> even become your new favorite flavor!!!

Let me see if I can make the analogy a bit more effective: I buy a bottle of Pepto Bismol. I expect there to be an antacid in it. I drink it, and it turns out to be Drano. I get sick. I never buy Pepto Bismol again, as my expectatins have not been met, and I have been given something I do not want and which is disgusting.

Listeners tune to one of thier favorite stations with the expectation of hearing what they believe the station if famous for. If you decieve them, they do not come back.
 
Re: great radio

>
> Listeners tune to one of their favorite stations with the
> expectation of hearing what they believe the station is famous for.


Unless they expect to hear their favorite all time hits, live in NYC and tuned in to 101.1 FM a few months ago on that Friday and they did not get "what they believe the station is famous for."

Or if they lived in LA and on the evening of St Patrick's Day tuned in to 93.1 FM expecting to hear their favorite Classic Rock song and ... well see above.

So we can always find exceptions to the (your) rule.
 
Re: great radio

> >
> > Listeners tune to one of their favorite stations with the
> > expectation of hearing what they believe the station is
> famous for.
>
>
> Unless they expect to hear their favorite all time hits,
> live in NYC and tuned in to 101.1 FM a few months ago on
> that Friday and they did not get "what they believe the
> station is famous for."
>
> Or if they lived in LA and on the evening of St Patrick's
> Day tuned in to 93.1 FM expecting to hear their favorite
> Classic Rock song and ... well see above.
>
> So we can always find exceptions to the (your) rule.
>

Both stations, Arrow and CBS, were serving their consituencies well.

Arrow was playing a good alternative to KLOS. But the harder rock spectrum in LA was getting thinner as the market approaches 70% ethnic compostion. Arrow was down to a 1.8 share, and not a particularly likely candidate for any knod of growth via working with the mix or the talent or the marketing.

CBS-FM had lost over half its 25-54 shares since 1999, and was down in billings. It was, in fact, down about 40% if you consider thier near-20% drop and a comparable growth in te market overall. So, the station still served the oldies listener, but there was an ever decreasing number of 25-54's for the format and a shrinking revenue base.

There is no way for commercial stations to serve audience segments that are not desired by advertisers. This is separate from the issue at hand, which involves playing the best music for your target and format. If the format no longer has sales validity, it does not matter how good the music is.
 
Re: Enthusiasm

> But radio is about FULFILLING EXPECTATION, not convincing
> them they should like what you're doing.

This is something that many stations overlook when they jump on the next big thing.

If people know you as an "oldies" station and you stop playing what people consider "oldies" (ie Beatles/Elvis/Motown) and start playing a bunch of 70's tunes, then the older audience will tune you out because you're not playing what they expect and the younger audience won't tune you in because they expect you to play a bunch of stuff they don't like.

That's why I think Infinity was smart to flip Tampa back to Q-105. If you're going to flip the music, you also need to flip the rest of the station to let people know that you've made a change, or else you will lose the expectations game. It's also why I don't think New York and Chicago was nearly as huge as a risk as it seemed.

It's not just oldies stations who miss this step. Remember when everyone seemed to shift from CHR to Hot AC in the 90's? Adults didn't listen because 'that's the station my daughter listens to'. Teens didn't listen because they played their mom's music. End result was nobody listened to those stations until they just blew them up.

It's equally important to know what your audience thinks you are as to know what you are... and if those two aren't one in the same, you have some work to do!<P ID="signature">______________
...co-moderator of the Satellite Radio, Phoenix, and San Diego boards...</P>
 
great radio

Another way to look at this is you buy a bottle of Pepto and they've reduced the amount of antacid in it (to try & increase profit margins), the Pepto doesn't work and you begin to think twice about buying it again. Couple more episodes like this and you're switching products.

This would be the same as a radio station diluting their music- their customers (listeners) would be less likely to keep coming back because their product was not as strong as originally.
>
> Let me see if I can make the analogy a bit more effective: I
> buy a bottle of Pepto Bismol. I expect there to be an
> antacid in it. I drink it, and it turns out to be Drano. I
> get sick. I never buy Pepto Bismol again, as my expectatins
> have not been met, and I have been given something I do not
> want and which is disgusting.
>
> Listeners tune to one of thier favorite stations with the
> expectation of hearing what they believe the station if
> famous for. If you decieve them, they do not come back.
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom