top 40 station we can listen to that doesn't play recurrents?

[mistermicrophone]

I'm not saying recurrents are a bad thing, but I've noticed stations relying on them much too heavily. In essence, use them, but don't abuse them. Too many stations today are abusing them.

Sometimes those recurrents test better than the currents with the LISTENERS...and isn't it about THEM?

The fact is, burnout is higher than callout (or any other form of testing) shows it to be, because when asked, most people respond positively because they like the song, but they won't say they're tired of it even if they are, because they think that if they do, the song will just drop off, and they don't want that to happen.

WHAT??? Good research is NOT done under said station's name. So why would the people know who they are talking to about music and worry about if a song will go away?? Also, don't forget, listeners are asked if they like, dislike or are burned out/sick of a song and scored accordingly.

If you don't trust research, what do YOU trust to program your station? Callout and research is not the be-all, end-all, but it should be the largest factor in music decisions!!

 

[jcolletta275]

I'm not saying recurrents are a bad thing, but I've noticed stations relying on them much too heavily. In essence, use them, but don't abuse them. Too many stations today are abusing them.

Sometimes those recurrents test better than the currents with the LISTENERS...and isn't it about THEM?

The fact is, burnout is higher than callout (or any other form of testing) shows it to be, because when asked, most people respond positively because they like the song, but they won't say they're tired of it even if they are, because they think that if they do, the song will just drop off, and they don't want that to happen.

WHAT??? Good research is NOT done under said station's name.

I never said it was.

So why would the people know who they are talking to about music and worry about if a song will go away??

I never said they'd know who they're talking to, but it's not as if it takes a rocket scientist to determine that the survey you're participating in has to do with radio airplay. Many people get those calls and just as many understand that's why they're getting them. Believe me, the thought does cross the mind. I have spoken to many non-radio people across the country on the matter, and they've all said the same thing.

Also, don't forget, listeners are asked if they like, dislike or are burned out/sick of a song and scored accordingly.

I accounted for that. As I said before, they won't say they're burned out or sick of a song because they realize the survey they're taking part in is used to determine airplay and they don't want to see these songs simply drop off of their favorite station because, despite the fact that they may be burned out on them, they still enjoy the song and would still like to hear it at some point in time.

If you don't trust research, what do YOU trust to program your station?

I never said I don't trust research. What I said was, sometimes it's a good thing to go a step further and simply say "okay, we've played this song into the ground and it's time to move on." Obviously that doesn't mean you should drop any song like a rock, but if you're running the same recurrent in high rotation for months and months on end, something needs to change. It takes a good MD to listen to their listeners. It takes an even better MD to pick up on the things their listeners are thinking but aren't saying. That's where that MD has to take charge and start phasing recurrents out of high rotation. It's not as ridiculous an idea as you make it out to be, it's simply good radio.

Callout and research is not the be-all, end-all, but it should be the largest factor in music decisions!!

Yes, but intuition and knowledge of how your target demo thinks are factors just as large.

 

[mistermicrophone]

I'm not saying recurrents are a bad thing, but I've noticed stations relying on them much too heavily. In essence, use them, but don't abuse them. Too many stations today are abusing them.

Sometimes those recurrents test better than the currents with the LISTENERS...and isn't it about THEM?

The fact is, burnout is higher than callout (or any other form of testing) shows it to be, because when asked, most people respond positively because they like the song, but they won't say they're tired of it even if they are, because they think that if they do, the song will just drop off, and they don't want that to happen.

WHAT??? Good research is NOT done under said station's name.

I never said it was.

So why would the people know who they are talking to about music and worry about if a song will go away??

I never said they'd know who they're talking to, but it's not as if it takes a rocket scientist to determine that the survey you're participating in has to do with radio airplay. Many people get those calls and just as many understand that's why they're getting them. Believe me, the thought does cross the mind. I have spoken to many non-radio people across the country on the matter, and they've all said the same thing.

Also, don't forget, listeners are asked if they like, dislike or are burned out/sick of a song and scored accordingly.

I accounted for that. As I said before, they won't say they're burned out or sick of a song because they realize the survey they're taking part in is used to determine airplay and they don't want to see these songs simply drop off of their favorite station because, despite the fact that they may be burned out on them, they still enjoy the song and would still like to hear it at some point in time.

If you don't trust research, what do YOU trust to program your station?

I never said I don't trust research. What I said was, sometimes it's a good thing to go a step further and simply say "okay, we've played this song into the ground and it's time to move on." Obviously that doesn't mean you should drop any song like a rock, but if you're running the same recurrent in high rotation for months and months on end, something needs to change. It takes a good MD to listen to their listeners. It takes an even better MD to pick up on the things their listeners are thinking but aren't saying. That's where that MD has to take charge and start phasing recurrents out of high rotation. It's not as ridiculous an idea as you make it out to be, it's simply good radio.

Callout and research is not the be-all, end-all, but it should be the largest factor in music decisions!!

Yes, but intuition and knowledge of how your target demo thinks are factors just as large.

So you are saying you can't trust callout because you think those surveyed, lied??? WOW. Ask any major market PD and they'll tell you that research is the most important factor in making music decisions, more than "knowing your demo" or "intuition", because they are not "just as large."

But I guess we have to believe you because "you've spoken to many non-radio people across the country" who told you this. And when you find that "mind-reading" MD who can tell what the listeners aren't saying, let me know, I could use him/her to get some winning lotto numbers!!

 

[jcolletta275]

Whether you want to believe me or not, I'm speaking from experience and sharing the opinions I've formed based on that experience. If you want to reject my ideas, go right ahead... it doesn't negatively affect me in any way.

Look, you're right that research is important. But you're dead wrong in thinking that knowing your demo isn't just as important. You can research and research until you have more survey results than a political poll, but if you don't know your demographic, you're not going to have a clue what to do with those results. Sure you can slap a few tracks into a specific rotation for a few weeks on end, but that's hardly innovative or compelling. Now, you find me a PD/MD that goes out and looks for new music that, based on those results, they know their listeners will enjoy instead of waiting for the next batch of singles to slide across their desk, and you'll have found a PD/MD that is keeping their audience engaged. Further than that, find me a PD or MD that can determine which songs are going to be hits with their audience before the music even makes it into the automation system, and that's the type of person I'm talking about. They know their audience, they know the music, and they know how to connect the two.

This isn't that hard... it just takes knowledge of two things: your audience and the music they love. It's not a psychic ability, it's simply foresight.

 

[mistermicrophone]

Whether you want to believe me or not, I'm speaking from experience and sharing the opinions I've formed based on that experience. If you want to reject my ideas, go right ahead... it doesn't negatively affect me in any way.

Look, you're right that research is important. But you're dead wrong in thinking that knowing your demo isn't just as important. You can research and research until you have more survey results than a political poll, but if you don't know your demographic, you're not going to have a clue what to do with those results. Sure you can slap a few tracks into a specific rotation for a few weeks on end, but that's hardly innovative or compelling. Now, you find me a PD/MD that goes out and looks for new music that, based on those results, they know their listeners will enjoy instead of waiting for the next batch of singles to slide across their desk, and you'll have found a PD/MD that is keeping their audience engaged. Further than that, find me a PD or MD that can determine which songs are going to be hits with their audience before the music even makes it into the automation system, and that's the type of person I'm talking about. They know their audience, they know the music, and they know how to connect the two.

This isn't that hard... it just takes knowledge of two things: your audience and the music they love. It's not a psychic ability, it's simply foresight.

Knowing what's going to be a hit before it is, is different than saying (direct quote):
"It takes a good MD to listen to their listeners. It takes an even better MD to pick up on the things their listeners are thinking but aren't saying." That quote was in reference to not trusting research on recurrents, not talking about finding new music.

I agree with you about knowing your demo and knowing what will work for a station, all I am saying is that if your demo is saying "we like it" or "we don't like it", you need to listen, regardless of how well you know them!!

I like fun radio debates

 

[jcolletta275]

I do too... no hard feelings

One thing I'd point out is that in my original post, I was linking using recurrents more often than should be done with the lack of a search for new music. That's how I was connecting the two. If that didn't come across, my apologies. That's the frame of reference I'd intended those comments to be in.

 

[spongebag7890]

If listeners aren't sick of a song, let them have it that way. Radio stations are Burger King after all, you take people's requests and give them orders. And when they get tired of Whopper Jr's and want a double cheeseburger, they'll tell you.

 

[Primitive]

Josh, While I agree with your points more than everyone else seems to, I think the reason that recurrents are so unapealing to you is because CHR burns them so badly when they are currents.

If they played more recurrents all the time, the currents wouldn't burn so quickly, and as a result your entire library would have a longer shelf life in my opinion. I love a CHR that plays the hits, so I can feel like I'm in touch with all of the new stuff, but then plays a nice mixture of some older stuff, for a bit of variety.

I love 93 Q in Syracuse for this reason. Once or twice an hour you get a song you haven't been hearing every 90 minutes for 3 months.

 

[jcolletta275]

Hmm... I suppose that could be. But at the same time, music turnover seems to be much too slow at many stations. That's why, in my original post, I was talking about finding more music than just what comes across the desk. If we were looking for new adds aside from what the labels send us, the burnout rate would be lower no matter how often you play recurrents. Simple math.

 

[Primitive]

Which leads me to an unrelated question... Why do the stations that should have a bigger library only play 700 songs in total?

Classic hit and classic rock stations seem to have less songs than the average listener would have in his or her own music library. This is one of the things listeners DO notice. They think we have the entire CD by an artist and only choose to play one song from it, even though 4 or 5 may have charted.

I know many people who don't work in radio who say, "I love (artist). But it I have to hear (song) one more time..."

We wonder why people love I-pods. Sure they only hold one or two hundred songs, but they can CHANGE those songs every couple of weeks.

 

[shadough]

Isn't it a fact that the Top40 Charts themselves, having created a 'recurrent' rule just few years ago, has decreased the number of 'Hits' per year? Very rarely would a song ever have a 20 week chart life. Now its common place. Therefore fewer hits per-year, means more recurrents, more repetition, and subsequently more burnout. But this is the trend of the industry. Recurrents are here to to stay, for now. so get used to em.

In the late '70s and early '80s, programmer Mike Joseph developed a Top 40/CHR format called "Hot Hits." The stations that used this approach played only current hits - no gold, no recurrents.
WNVZ in Norfolk, and WMAR-FM Baltimore (now WWMX).

A couple of years later, in 1986, WTRK (106.1 FM, now WISX) tried a similar all-currents format (called "Electric 106"), also consulted by Joseph, and failed miserably. They then became WEGX "Eagle 106" and began playing older songs along with the currents, and the ratings went up dramatically after years in the toilet for that frequency.

Hmmm, I believe 106.1 switched to Z106 WZGO before going to WEGX Eagle106. I know it was Z106 in '86, and I think the eagle landed in 1987. I remember the Hots Hits format on WNVZ Z104. It only lasted till the end of 1986. Starting in 1987 they 'asked the listeners what they wanted', gave em a phone # to call & the listeners requested more music, more hits from the early 80s.....so they started playing recurrents and created '10 in a row' every hour. WMAR, Hot Hits K106, I remember breifly too but they just couldnt compete w/ B104 and switched to mix.