2Son: I was pretty rough on my comments to your initial post. I see you have questions, seek answers and just want to understand why. Quite frankly I faced that with a LPFM applicant. His goal was to pretty much shoot down anything radio for his personal preference. Here's some stuff I covered with him to try to help him determine the path for his station.
When I talked ratings, he replied the sampling was too small to pretend to be accurate. I told him it really didn't matter since it was ratings and your position among the other stations that dictated advertising sales and it's accuracy was not the question, but rather the ratings were the tool used in the advertising business to help determine the buys. If he was to dismiss ratings, he'd be the lone wolf because the rest of the industry uses them because they're the best we have. I know him personally and he doubts the validity of the Bible. I used that as an example here saying you feel there are many inaccuracies in the book yet if you were a Christian would you not cling to the Bible because it is the source and only purported source? I said the accuracy was not at question because the whole industry is affected by the content.
On music research, he squawked that the small 'portion' of the song used in auditorium settings and the limited number of songs tested meant it was worthless. I told him the industry that conducts research has figured out a time frame for people to get a good idea of what the song is and determine if the person liked it or disliked it and by what degree. To test 10,000 songs, you could not get enough people to do a proper sampling that would stay with it. In addition, by carefully selecting songs to sample, other research can determine what other songs the listener that liked a certain song would also like equally.
I talked consensus. Here is where small playlists flourish. Just as you would do if you are placing inventory in a retail store, you would start with products 10 out of 10 shoppers buy. These would be front and center to make shopping easiest. Next would be the items 9 in 10 buy and downward, with those lesser popular items being fewer in quantity and further back in the store. Radio designs itself this way. You take the songs all of your target audience likes and work your way down. Where you cut off the playlist is determined by how competitive your market might be.
While the LPFM applicant said there was never consensus but simple majority rules, I disagree. It is how far away from the 10 in 10 you get that determines the length of time you keep a listener. The longer you retain that listener, the better your quarter hour average of listeners or in other words, how many will hear that commercial. It is a fact if only 6 in 10 like a song you play, you effectively lose 4 in 10 listeners when you play that song. That simply means you hand that listener to your competition and your number of listeners hearing that commercial are fewer or the advertiser must buy more commercials to reach your listeners.
For the LPFM applicant I took two stations he knew well and took the ratings to show that the station that aired mostly unfamiliar music (a music discovery station) had fewer than half the listeners and they listened less at a time and less per week. By this I meant, the unfamiliar music station had a listener about 1.25 hours a week. The familiar music station had a listener about 3.75 hours a week. If you looked at the number listening in any quarter hour, the familiar station had 5 listeners for every one the unfamiliar music station had. As a result, to reach every listener on both stations the advertiser needed to buy 15 spots on the unfamiliar station for every one they bought on the familiar music station. Needless to say, advertisers have a certain amount they can spend, so in theory, the familiar station can command 15 times the rate per commercial compared to the unfamiliar music station. Even in Public Radio, Underwriters understand they need 15 units to reach as many as they'd reach on the familiar station. And numbers matter on listener donations, which is at best 1 in 10 listeners and likely 1 in 12 is more accurate. In theory the familiar station would have 15 listener donations to every 1 listener donation on the unfamiliar music station.
Keep in mind, listeners only tune to radio an average of 806 minutes a week. Think of this as 60 minutes in an hour. You can't have 59 or 61 minutes. What you want is a listener that will listen longer and more often than your competitors and literally any other station on the dial. Also, commercial time is limited. Just because you have fewer listeners does not mean you can increase the commercial load from, say 10 or 12 minutes to 20 to 24 minutes to compensate for fewer listeners. Thus, the struggle is to get as many listeners you can get to listen as long and as often as possible so the commercial rate reflects that. Since commercials are limited, the more you can make the better. For example if you had a tiny retail business that could hold only 10 to 12 items, you'd want to make as much money as you could off each item.
Radio listening, just like ourselves, changes. The older the audience the less important 'discovery' becomes. Younger audiences thrive somewhat on discovery. While radio might want to change things, we have learned that anything outside the usual means the number of people that like it drops. In other words, you are more successful at getting people to tune to your competitor than attracting listeners because of the 'discovery' music.
You might have noticed the less competitive markets have stations that break out of the 'safe music' box more frequently. Plainly put, the fewer choices on the dial, the safer you are in trying something new. In part this happens because the typical listener, because of fewer choices on the radio dial, is likely stay put even if the song is not one that like too much because the other choices are less liked by the listener.
As one who loves music myself, I have learned over the years to look at radio playlists as a business and my personal preferences as, well, personal. For me, listening to radio is not so much about the music but the delivery and I like lots of different types of music. Considering I'd be just as happy hearing AC/DC and Goldfinger along with some bluegrass and Red Dirt Country, I doubt my preferred format would be anybody's favorite except mine. That LPFM friend couldn't understand why you couldn't play Freebird, Willie Nelson, Benny Goodman, Floyd Cramer and KC and the Sunshine Band along with deep cuts from bands you'd know. That might be what he likes but nobody else is on the same page of the music book. With care, you could create a playlist of a few hundred songs where both of us would love the station and many others would too. That's the goal in radio...to get as many on the same music page as possible.
As for music selection: When I was doing music at a few stations, the program director had a criteria for me to utilize. I did have some liberties and took them. In each case it was the music we received from the record companies that was the universe of new music to add. Reps from those record companies tried to get you to add songs in an attempt to build a list of stations reporting the song to get it on the charts. It wasn't a 'go looking for music' concept, but rather of what we sent, what works for our station and the image we want to portray. We also had a list of stations we watched. These were stations that inspired us and seemed to be 'like minded'. Simply put, if they added a song, we took a second listen for sure. Once or twice a year we'd get a song in and add it out of the box without a word from the record company or any station going on it. It was one of those things where the song was perfect for the station as if it had been recorded with our station in mind. Sometimes it became a hit. Back in the 1980s I added I Can't Wait by Nushooz (before my friend at Atco Records, Barbara, got Atlantic Records to sign them) and Perfect Way by Scritti Politti. They simply fit our image. Such adds were rare and care was taken to make sure the song sounded like it should be there on our station. There was a certain 'sound alike' criteria we used. Years earlier I added an album cut called Crazy Love by Poco about 4 to 6 weeks before the single was released. Needless to say, if I was in a market like Phoenix, I doubt I would have added these but rather set them aside to watch and maybe test. Phoenix is competitive enough that you want to avoid a slip up that can cost the station revenue.
Radio is really about serving its listeners. We have to but simply put, radio is in a small box and our elbows are always bumping the sides. We have a tricky game of serving the listener and creating the best case scenario for sales. We can't scrimp on either end. We have to craft a way that we can do it to serve and sell. You bet we are worried about the other venues out there, how we can involve those other venues and maintain if not grow our audience. If we don't, our career paths spiral. I think most of us with decades in radio can attest we went through a bunch to get where we are. We have war stories of bad stations, bad bosses, being almost homeless and other struggles along the way. We simply don't want to step back or start over.
As for radio listening, I got my first fulltime gig in 1978. Back then 97% of America listened to radio. They listened about 3.5 hours a day...I think 3:28. Listening, the last time I looked was 91% and 13 hours and 26 minutes a week. Since that time the #1 source of news has changed, cable TV has come about, there are almost 4 times as many radio stations, there was no such thing as a translator (a 250 watt repeater of another station), no such thing as LPFM, no computers and internet and no cell phones. In fact, lots of cars didn't have FM radios and buying a deck for your car was either 8 track or cassette and cost about a week's pay to buy and get installed. Considering all the media and options available, I'd say radio has performed pretty darn good.
Please understand I consider radio as any audio that is broadcast over the air and received on a device called a radio, phone or other device. An internet station, by my definition, is not a radio station as it is not licensed to and does not occupy a frequency that can be heard by using that device called a radio.
The ultimate challenge of radio at this point is how do we monetize the part that is not heard on a certain frequency on the radio dial? Stations have to pay to be online, pay all the fees an internet only station must and maintain a website keeping it fresh and interesting. I have looked at the numbers. Quite frankly, from what I see, broadcast radio's cost of operation when compared to songs played and cost to broadcast to one listener is many multiples more than the cost of a listener over broadcast over the air radio. Until the costs diminish (and that won't happen) or somebody crafts a model to earn the cash needed, we are still in the pioneer stage (iHeart maybe has). The worst part is we don't seem to be able to get any substantial number of listeners streaming...hundreds versus 10s of thousands over the air. I contend the issue is we don't just think radio for internet (computers, phones, etc.). A radio has one purpose: listening to radio. And it's free for users and, shall we say, wireless without the need for a cell tower or wi-fi. We continue to attempt non-traditional revenue options and there's creative ideas out there but from where I'm sitting, no plan in place that can convince investors the payback is coming in due time.
The figures I used were from the Radio Advertising Bureau. While they are there to promote radio, like any other company providing research, integrity is everything. Without it they'd go broke. They must have accurate and correct information to continue to exist. The key thing nobody understands is such firms do not lie about figures they publish or manipulate results but rather 'spin' the real results in the most positive light possible. So when they tout 91% listen to radio at least once a week for at least a minimal time, I believe them. The fact checkers out there (and any RAB wannabes) would have already proven fraud if it was not accurate with enough sampling from all areas in the country.
When I talked ratings, he replied the sampling was too small to pretend to be accurate. I told him it really didn't matter since it was ratings and your position among the other stations that dictated advertising sales and it's accuracy was not the question, but rather the ratings were the tool used in the advertising business to help determine the buys. If he was to dismiss ratings, he'd be the lone wolf because the rest of the industry uses them because they're the best we have. I know him personally and he doubts the validity of the Bible. I used that as an example here saying you feel there are many inaccuracies in the book yet if you were a Christian would you not cling to the Bible because it is the source and only purported source? I said the accuracy was not at question because the whole industry is affected by the content.
On music research, he squawked that the small 'portion' of the song used in auditorium settings and the limited number of songs tested meant it was worthless. I told him the industry that conducts research has figured out a time frame for people to get a good idea of what the song is and determine if the person liked it or disliked it and by what degree. To test 10,000 songs, you could not get enough people to do a proper sampling that would stay with it. In addition, by carefully selecting songs to sample, other research can determine what other songs the listener that liked a certain song would also like equally.
I talked consensus. Here is where small playlists flourish. Just as you would do if you are placing inventory in a retail store, you would start with products 10 out of 10 shoppers buy. These would be front and center to make shopping easiest. Next would be the items 9 in 10 buy and downward, with those lesser popular items being fewer in quantity and further back in the store. Radio designs itself this way. You take the songs all of your target audience likes and work your way down. Where you cut off the playlist is determined by how competitive your market might be.
While the LPFM applicant said there was never consensus but simple majority rules, I disagree. It is how far away from the 10 in 10 you get that determines the length of time you keep a listener. The longer you retain that listener, the better your quarter hour average of listeners or in other words, how many will hear that commercial. It is a fact if only 6 in 10 like a song you play, you effectively lose 4 in 10 listeners when you play that song. That simply means you hand that listener to your competition and your number of listeners hearing that commercial are fewer or the advertiser must buy more commercials to reach your listeners.
For the LPFM applicant I took two stations he knew well and took the ratings to show that the station that aired mostly unfamiliar music (a music discovery station) had fewer than half the listeners and they listened less at a time and less per week. By this I meant, the unfamiliar music station had a listener about 1.25 hours a week. The familiar music station had a listener about 3.75 hours a week. If you looked at the number listening in any quarter hour, the familiar station had 5 listeners for every one the unfamiliar music station had. As a result, to reach every listener on both stations the advertiser needed to buy 15 spots on the unfamiliar station for every one they bought on the familiar music station. Needless to say, advertisers have a certain amount they can spend, so in theory, the familiar station can command 15 times the rate per commercial compared to the unfamiliar music station. Even in Public Radio, Underwriters understand they need 15 units to reach as many as they'd reach on the familiar station. And numbers matter on listener donations, which is at best 1 in 10 listeners and likely 1 in 12 is more accurate. In theory the familiar station would have 15 listener donations to every 1 listener donation on the unfamiliar music station.
Keep in mind, listeners only tune to radio an average of 806 minutes a week. Think of this as 60 minutes in an hour. You can't have 59 or 61 minutes. What you want is a listener that will listen longer and more often than your competitors and literally any other station on the dial. Also, commercial time is limited. Just because you have fewer listeners does not mean you can increase the commercial load from, say 10 or 12 minutes to 20 to 24 minutes to compensate for fewer listeners. Thus, the struggle is to get as many listeners you can get to listen as long and as often as possible so the commercial rate reflects that. Since commercials are limited, the more you can make the better. For example if you had a tiny retail business that could hold only 10 to 12 items, you'd want to make as much money as you could off each item.
Radio listening, just like ourselves, changes. The older the audience the less important 'discovery' becomes. Younger audiences thrive somewhat on discovery. While radio might want to change things, we have learned that anything outside the usual means the number of people that like it drops. In other words, you are more successful at getting people to tune to your competitor than attracting listeners because of the 'discovery' music.
You might have noticed the less competitive markets have stations that break out of the 'safe music' box more frequently. Plainly put, the fewer choices on the dial, the safer you are in trying something new. In part this happens because the typical listener, because of fewer choices on the radio dial, is likely stay put even if the song is not one that like too much because the other choices are less liked by the listener.
As one who loves music myself, I have learned over the years to look at radio playlists as a business and my personal preferences as, well, personal. For me, listening to radio is not so much about the music but the delivery and I like lots of different types of music. Considering I'd be just as happy hearing AC/DC and Goldfinger along with some bluegrass and Red Dirt Country, I doubt my preferred format would be anybody's favorite except mine. That LPFM friend couldn't understand why you couldn't play Freebird, Willie Nelson, Benny Goodman, Floyd Cramer and KC and the Sunshine Band along with deep cuts from bands you'd know. That might be what he likes but nobody else is on the same page of the music book. With care, you could create a playlist of a few hundred songs where both of us would love the station and many others would too. That's the goal in radio...to get as many on the same music page as possible.
As for music selection: When I was doing music at a few stations, the program director had a criteria for me to utilize. I did have some liberties and took them. In each case it was the music we received from the record companies that was the universe of new music to add. Reps from those record companies tried to get you to add songs in an attempt to build a list of stations reporting the song to get it on the charts. It wasn't a 'go looking for music' concept, but rather of what we sent, what works for our station and the image we want to portray. We also had a list of stations we watched. These were stations that inspired us and seemed to be 'like minded'. Simply put, if they added a song, we took a second listen for sure. Once or twice a year we'd get a song in and add it out of the box without a word from the record company or any station going on it. It was one of those things where the song was perfect for the station as if it had been recorded with our station in mind. Sometimes it became a hit. Back in the 1980s I added I Can't Wait by Nushooz (before my friend at Atco Records, Barbara, got Atlantic Records to sign them) and Perfect Way by Scritti Politti. They simply fit our image. Such adds were rare and care was taken to make sure the song sounded like it should be there on our station. There was a certain 'sound alike' criteria we used. Years earlier I added an album cut called Crazy Love by Poco about 4 to 6 weeks before the single was released. Needless to say, if I was in a market like Phoenix, I doubt I would have added these but rather set them aside to watch and maybe test. Phoenix is competitive enough that you want to avoid a slip up that can cost the station revenue.
Radio is really about serving its listeners. We have to but simply put, radio is in a small box and our elbows are always bumping the sides. We have a tricky game of serving the listener and creating the best case scenario for sales. We can't scrimp on either end. We have to craft a way that we can do it to serve and sell. You bet we are worried about the other venues out there, how we can involve those other venues and maintain if not grow our audience. If we don't, our career paths spiral. I think most of us with decades in radio can attest we went through a bunch to get where we are. We have war stories of bad stations, bad bosses, being almost homeless and other struggles along the way. We simply don't want to step back or start over.
As for radio listening, I got my first fulltime gig in 1978. Back then 97% of America listened to radio. They listened about 3.5 hours a day...I think 3:28. Listening, the last time I looked was 91% and 13 hours and 26 minutes a week. Since that time the #1 source of news has changed, cable TV has come about, there are almost 4 times as many radio stations, there was no such thing as a translator (a 250 watt repeater of another station), no such thing as LPFM, no computers and internet and no cell phones. In fact, lots of cars didn't have FM radios and buying a deck for your car was either 8 track or cassette and cost about a week's pay to buy and get installed. Considering all the media and options available, I'd say radio has performed pretty darn good.
Please understand I consider radio as any audio that is broadcast over the air and received on a device called a radio, phone or other device. An internet station, by my definition, is not a radio station as it is not licensed to and does not occupy a frequency that can be heard by using that device called a radio.
The ultimate challenge of radio at this point is how do we monetize the part that is not heard on a certain frequency on the radio dial? Stations have to pay to be online, pay all the fees an internet only station must and maintain a website keeping it fresh and interesting. I have looked at the numbers. Quite frankly, from what I see, broadcast radio's cost of operation when compared to songs played and cost to broadcast to one listener is many multiples more than the cost of a listener over broadcast over the air radio. Until the costs diminish (and that won't happen) or somebody crafts a model to earn the cash needed, we are still in the pioneer stage (iHeart maybe has). The worst part is we don't seem to be able to get any substantial number of listeners streaming...hundreds versus 10s of thousands over the air. I contend the issue is we don't just think radio for internet (computers, phones, etc.). A radio has one purpose: listening to radio. And it's free for users and, shall we say, wireless without the need for a cell tower or wi-fi. We continue to attempt non-traditional revenue options and there's creative ideas out there but from where I'm sitting, no plan in place that can convince investors the payback is coming in due time.
The figures I used were from the Radio Advertising Bureau. While they are there to promote radio, like any other company providing research, integrity is everything. Without it they'd go broke. They must have accurate and correct information to continue to exist. The key thing nobody understands is such firms do not lie about figures they publish or manipulate results but rather 'spin' the real results in the most positive light possible. So when they tout 91% listen to radio at least once a week for at least a minimal time, I believe them. The fact checkers out there (and any RAB wannabes) would have already proven fraud if it was not accurate with enough sampling from all areas in the country.
