Too Much of a Good Thing? Powerplay Overkill on CHR Radio

[CHRles]

I want to bring one of the sticky issues associated with Contemporary Hit Radio.
I know some people complain about how some stations lean too heavily on Rhythmic/Pop, how other stations ignore some major hits, or how some stations have a pretty small list of Currents.

My biggest gripe with CHR at the moment is how often some stations rotate their powers. Need some examples?

The 2 most played songs on KMVQ 99.7 Now San Francisco each received 131 plays this week.
The top song on 97.1 Amp Radio L.A. also received 131 spins, with the runner up song at 130 plays
The number one song on 103.5 Kiss FM Chicago received 126 plays, songs number 2 got 125, and number 3 got 124 spins in the past week
Hot 97.5 Phoenix gave its top song 132 spins this week
Z-104.3 Baltimore has its top song with 125 plays this week
Hot 103.5 Sacramento's number one song got 129 spins with number 2 at 128 spins while over on rival 107.9 The End the top song received 126 spins
Radio Now 100.9 Indianapolis gave 127 spins to its top song

Now check this out, 105.7 Now in Greensboro/Winston-Salem gave its top song a whopping 136 spins(!!!) all in the past week.

So my questions are why, and how effective is this strategy?
I understand the need to play your top performing songs frequently, but this many times? And in general, is there really a need to play a song over 80-90 times a week? Is it really effective, and are there good results in the ratings for stations that spin their top songs in overdrive? What happens to the station's Time Spent Listening in the process?

I would love to get everyone's input on this - the listeners, the fans, as well as the folks working in radio.
Do you agree with this practice? Do you see a need for it?

 

[J. Rob]

Yeah, that's way too much. 80-90 spins per week would be fine IMO.

 

[MCMagicCracker]

Depends on their strategy. Those stations are concentrating 100% on cume and 0% on TSL.

 

[atlantaboy]

I remember studies showing that 18-25 year olds tend to listen to the radio an average of 1 hour per day - I feel like these are mostly stations targeting the younger end of the pop demo

 

[anthonydt06]

I remember studies showing that 18-25 year olds tend to listen to the radio an average of 1 hour per day - I feel like these are mostly stations targeting the younger end of the pop demo

lol that's because people can only tolerate about an hour of the same song being played once or twice an hour.

 

[Snorch]

There is a subset of consultants and programming execs that feel the listener should hear a hit everytime they tune in. It's great for trends and short-term bang. It works for the book if enough music is moved in and out.

There is really nothing wrong with spinning a true hit more than 100+ times per week. But if it hits, say 500+ spins within a month, the burn will be noticeable in call-out. Sucks too, because listeners will associate the burn of one song with the momentum of the entire station.

 

[butlerguy03]

I don't think they care much about TSL. That's why they play songs so frequently, to satisfy the masses of listeners going around from station to station or just in their car for 15-30 minutes. I don't really know anyone, outside of radio, that listens to a music radio station for longer than their typical daily commute. TSL is for spoken-word and "at work" stations, not CHR.

 

[atlantaboy]

I remember studies showing that 18-25 year olds tend to listen to the radio an average of 1 hour per day - I feel like these are mostly stations targeting the younger end of the pop demo

lol that's because people can only tolerate about an hour of the same song being played once or twice an hour.

No - it's the other way around lol - the younger demo only listens for an hour a day, so the young-leaning CHRs need to make sure they hear whatever songs are in power during the hour that they listen

In other words, the assumption is (whether it's right or not) that even if young-leaning CHRs played powers 60x a week, their audience still mainly only listens for an hour a day

I wonder if you're right though that it can become a Catch-22

 

[justpassingthough]

I'm guessing its somewhat of a catch 22.

I think CHR has their hands tied in this regard, though. They have to stay young, hip and fresh to attract their target- they're competing for the attention of young people, who have more options for entertainment now than ever before. They have to strike while the iron is hot and burn out these songs. The tastes of everyone (teens to adults) is more fickle today, because we live in a world of instant gratification. If one wants to hear their favorite pop song of the moment and its unlikely they'll hear it on CHR, they can go the internet, Pandora, satellite radio, and the list goes on and on.

In that regard, I don't blame CHR programmers, as I think its a sign of the culture in which we live.

 

[atlantaboy]

Also, to be fair, those definitely aren't the highest rated stations in the country - those stations in Phoenix and Sacramento are doing horribly, and the ones in Indy and Chicago are pretty mediocre

 

[carolinaradio]

Kind of un-related, but WMKS, while not a ratings monster, certainly has risen. WKZL, though, wasn't probably tough competition - they are one of the most interesting CHR's I've heard. I think there was a void for a station like WMKS. KZL doesn't ignore rap/hip hop (or a lot of "adult" records), but still play songs that are well over 5 years old like "This Love", "Because Of You" and "Crazy." They're pretty unique.

 

[CHRles]

Also, to be fair, those definitely aren't the highest rated stations in the country - those stations in Phoenix and Sacramento are doing horribly, and the ones in Indy and Chicago are pretty mediocre

Kiss Chicago is number one in cume, and number one in shares in its target demo of 18-34 year olds. Hardly what I'd call mediocre
As for Now in Indi, the station's 18-34 year olds are solid, and a hell of a lot better than what we saw with Cumulus-owned I-94 (which recently shifted to Hot AC). Additionally, Radio Now's signal strength is nowhere nearly as good as that of Hot AC 99.5 WZPL yet its bested ZPL in shares, and cume-wise only a few thousand listeners separate these 2 stations.

 

[atlantaboy]

Also, to be fair, those definitely aren't the highest rated stations in the country - those stations in Phoenix and Sacramento are doing horribly, and the ones in Indy and Chicago are pretty mediocre

Kiss Chicago is number one in cume, and number one in shares in its target demo of 18-34 year olds. Hardly what I'd call mediocre
As for Now in Indi, the station's 18-34 year olds are solid, and a hell of a lot better than what we saw with Cumulus-owned I-94 (which recently shifted to Hot AC). Additionally, Radio Now's signal strength is nowhere nearly as good as that of Hot AC 99.5 WZPL yet its bested ZPL in shares, and cume-wise only a few thousand listeners separate these 2 stations.

Kiss Chicago is 10th in Share, with both its Rhythmic competitor and its CHR-leaning Hot AC competitor ahead of it

Now/Indi is 11th in Share, with its Rhythmic competitor and even its Alternative station ahead of it

In Chicago, 9 stations are more successful than WKSC
In Indy, 10 stations are more successful than WNOU

That's pretty mediocre if you ask me

 

[Adam Rivers]

12 (or 6+) mean nothing.

 

[atlantaboy]

12 (or 6+) mean nothing.

It's EXTREMELY difficult for me to believe that the main information Arbitron posts each month means "nothing" - if it meant nothing, why would Arbitron post it?

 

[CHRles]

The "main" information released to the general public via Trades and Radio Info is nothing more than a beauty contest. For bragging rights purposes it's always nice to tell people you're number one in your market.
12+ or 6+ general ratings gives you a gauge of the overall performance of a station in the market, but this information doesn't give you the full picture.

For example, an Easy Listening station might be number one in shares in a market like Sarasota, but this means nothing if the majority of the listeners are 55+, and the cume is lower than that of many other stations in the market. Same goes for some of the AM N/T stations, especially the ones that lean on Conservative Talk. They may pull some good shares, but how big is their cume and how old is the typical listener?

If a Top 40 station only ranks 10th in the general market ratings, but is Top 3 in its target demo of 18-34 year olds than it's definitely successful whether you find it extremely difficult to believe or not. Such a station can go to advertisers and showcase the true story - the high cume, and the high ratings shares among 18-34 year olds. You can further break ratings down by household income, counties, ethnicities, etc.

Hasn't David Eduardo explained this to you in the past on the Atlanta or Chicago board?

 

[atlantaboy]

Hasn't David Eduardo explained this to you in the past on the Atlanta or Chicago board?

Multiple people in the industry (on Pulse Music Board) have explained to me for years that cume doesn't matter to advertisers, share does (since high cume/low share means people listen for EXTREMELY brief periods of time)

Bottom line is though, being 10th in the market with high Cume is not a great sell to advertisers compared to being 1st in the market with high Cume - and it's extremely hard for me to believe that Arbitron would constantly publish ratings charts to the public that don't matter

What you're essentially saying, I think, is that advertisers could care less how many people listen to a station outside of the primary target demo, and I just don't buy it at all - whatever you're selling, it's not exclusively to females 18-34 - it's better for business if the station you're advertising on brings in some females over 34, males, etc. - plus it's a better investment for advertisers if your 18-34 audience listens for three hours a day average compared to one hour a day or less, simply because there's a better chance people will hear their commercials if they listen for longer periods of time

The bottom line for stations is revenue, and you make a lot more money if you're #1 18-34 females with a 7.0 share than if you're #1 18-34 females with a 3.5 share

 

[atlantaboy]

Just to explain it another way...

Let's say the Regional Mexican station in one market gets a 2.0 share - but it's #1 with its advertisers primary demographic (Mexican-Americans, 18-45)

In another market, the Regional Mexican station is getting a 5.5 share, but it's also #1 with its advertisers primary demographic

According to you, both stations would be equally successful (financially), because what matters is it's #1 with the core demographic of its advertisers

There's no way IMO those stations would be equally successful, because the advertisers in the market where the station gets a 5.5 share would be pouring more money into the station than the advertisers in the market where the station is getting a 2.0 share

 

[Slinky]

Bottom line is though, being 10th in the market with high Cume is not a great sell to advertisers compared to being 1st in the market with high Cume - and it's extremely hard for me to believe that Arbitron would constantly publish ratings charts to the public that don't matter

I'll agree with you on cume vs. AQH share. AQH share is the far more important metric.

But CHRles and Adam are absolutely correct about 6+. It is irrelevant. The only reason we talk about 6+ numbers on these boards is because that's all we have access to. Actually, the ENTIRE reason Arbitron publishes 6+ is because they don't matter. If you're an advertiser or a radio station, Arbitron wants you to subscribe for the numbers that do matter (18-34, 25-54). Think of the published 6+ rankings as just a promotional tool for Arbitron to gain more subscribers. Arbitron doesn't give away its prized data for free.

Not a perfect analogy, but think of it like Mediabase- Mediabase gives away its top 40 charts for free, but if you want to do anything advanced, like song history on a given station or custom chart panels, you have to pay. Mediabase uses the published charts as a promotional tool to get more radio and recording industry professionals to buy the more important tools and data.

What you're essentially saying, I think, is that advertisers could care less how many people listen to a station outside of the primary target demo, and I just don't buy it at all - whatever you're selling, it's not exclusively to females 18-34 - it's better for business if the station you're advertising on brings in some females over 34, males, etc. - plus it's a better investment for advertisers if your 18-34 audience listens for three hours a day average compared to one hour a day or less, simply because there's a better chance people will hear their commercials if they listen for longer periods of time

If you're trying to pitch ad sales to a local business, maybe that would work as a sales pitch, but with agencies, it's simply not the case. Agencies have specific target ages and sexes for clients. An agency might want to buy the top 3 stations in 18-34 females for a young female-targeted ad campaign. If your station is #1 6+, but #6 in 18-34 females, you lose out on that sale. If your station is #3 18-34 females and #20 6+ you get the sale. The agency doesn't care about your station's performance in other demos for a targeted buy.

Most CHRs target 18-34, so they focus on owning that demo.

I know we're on the CHR board but one format this matters a lot for is Hot AC- Hot ACs often have bad 12+ numbers, but they do well in the 25-44 white female demographic. That is why stations like WPLJ are still successful.

The bottom line for stations is revenue, and you make a lot more money if you're #1 18-34 females with a 7.0 share than if you're #1 18-34 females with a 3.5 share

That doesn't work as a blanket statement. It totally depends on where the rest of that 7 share or 3.5 share is coming from.

 

[Slinky]

Just to explain it another way...

Let's say the Regional Mexican station in one market gets a 2.0 share - but it's #1 with its advertisers primary demographic (Mexican-Americans, 18-45)

In another market, the Regional Mexican station is getting a 5.5 share, but it's also #1 with its advertisers primary demographic

According to you, both stations would be equally successful (financially), because what matters is it's #1 with the core demographic of its advertisers

There's no way IMO those stations would be equally successful, because the advertisers in the market where the station gets a 5.5 share would be pouring more money into the station than the advertisers in the market where the station is getting a 2.0 share

There's way too many variables in that argument. Are we assuming markets 1 and 2 are equally populated? Are the Mexican-American populations equal? Do they have equal wealth? Do they both have the same share in the target demographic (Mexican-Americans 18-45)? Do they both have the same share in other possible target demographics (18-34, 25-54)? Do they have the same number of avails (advertising slots)?

Let's assume all these variables are exactly equal. That means the 5.5 share station must be getting a lot of listeners in the 55+ demographic, and most advertisers aren't interested in those listeners. I would guess that, in this scenario, the stations would have near equal revenue.