VALLEY RADIO NEEDS AN OVERHAUL ASAP!! - Nevermind, I've given up

[b-turner]

I have read the comments about how terrible radio is.

I think the poster might be much like me. Music is important to me. Discovery is a big deal for me. I also have programmed stations. Programming stations is a business, just like your job. It has nothing to do with you and what you want but rather you are in a position to perform a task within certain parameters. Yes, you use what you learned of the business to craft it, but I have developed programming I didn't personally care for and some I really liked. For example, you might not care for McDonald's burgers but you work flipping burgers at McDonald's and perform your job well. It doesn't matter if you like the burgers but that you do your job well.

I have learned there are two types of music listeners: serious and casual. For the serious listener, music is important, discovery is important and you are thrilled by expanding your knowledge of music. The casual listener wants familiar, comfortable and ambient listening. They enjoy music because of entirely different reasons. In fact is is somewhat of a bonding experience. The listener connects to the community at large through familiar and comfortable songs their friends know. This group is the majority, the vast majority.

To demonstrate this, I like watching a good movie. I could not tell you if the actor was 'right' for the part, how the actor performed in the part compared to other movies and I could not tell you if the writer did a good job or not. I watch movies not because of who is in the movie, who wrote it or anything else other than it seemed interesting enough to watch. Most folks that watch movies are like this. A buddy of mine's jaw drops because I don't analyze and judge the acting and writing as he does. He doesn't understand how I don't keep up with the various movies written by a person or the career of each actor and actress. He knows all of that and it is important to him. I could care less. I just know if I liked the movie or not. If I were to transfer that to music, I would rate a casual listener.

I think back to a man I worked for about 35 years ago. He bought his first radio station. He personally loved classical music and his dream was to run his own classical station. In talking music preference with him, he detested country music and thought country music listeners were everything the negative stereotype of a country music listener was. He did extensive research and learned country music was preferred in his town. He ran a very successful, very well done country station. He learned and embraced his audience to strengthen his position.

Talking to a LPFM applicant, the person loves blues and thinks it is the perfect format to turn radio on its ear in his small town. I asked him how many all blues stations were there in the USA. I suggested if there is not an all blues station making it in a major city why that was and if there was not an all blues station in a major city that reached millions then why did he think the 20,000 he'd reach with his LPFM would contain enough blues fans to support a station. He said I was touting the 'corporate' radio agenda and I had no clue. His station is now dark. My parting shot was if you are going to change radio you have to change the listener first. By the way, this guy believed blues would work because all his friends loved blues music. As it turned out, they didn't even care for a steady diet of blues on a station designed for them. Sure they'd listen some but mostly to other stations.

Whether you believe radio does what it does or not (aka research, etc.) and whether you think all the figures you see about how many listen, etc., are invented from thin air or not doesn't matter. Radio is still viable, has the listeners to get the revenue to pay the bills and turn a profit. If you wonder if radio is viable, try bidding at the next auction at the FCC and see the prices people are willing to pay just to earn a construction permit. Then add the price of construction and land acquisition and then monthly operating expenses and then you tell me why folks are willing to pay so much for something people supposedly don't like and don't listen to.

 

[TheBigA]

I was just looking at the TuneIn page for Phoenix. If you can't find a unique or creative radio station on that list, you're not looking. I often tell people who say they're bored with radio that they should look outside their own biases and sample music they've never heard. That might be jazz, it might be roots rock, it might be R&B. But if the music sounds the same, it's because you've never actually tried something new. There are lots of stations, and sometimes the best ones are non-commercial.

http://tunein.com/radio/Phoenix-r100015/

 

[2Son]

You know, I went to bad last night feeling kind of bad for the way I conveyed some of the comments that I made because I wasn't trying to direct them towards the hard-working individuals in the industry, but my focus lied on the industry in general. I do know that when shares are down, people are in jeopardy of losing their jobs; however, I'm getting the impression that some of you are simply brushing me off as ridiculousness.

I find it sad that as a consumer expressing my opinion, I am basically being told that I have no clue what I am speaking about, that my points are not valid, and it's really not that important. No, I am not a radio professional nor do I pretend to know more than anyone in the industry, but some things just do not make sense to me. I know that radio is still viable, but I find it questionable to be told that listenership has barely declined. I've heard that total listenership in PPM markets has declined more than 13 percent since 2010. Is that a significant amount? Yet, I'm being told that the percentage of those who use radio hasn't really changed. What measure is currently used to determine the most accurate percentage of listeners in our country who listen to terrestrial radio or is simply owning a radio an indicator? If I were to randomly poll a group of 100 people I know (or not know) to determine how, how often, or whether or not they listen to radio each week, would I come up with at least 93 percent? I'm not sure I would. If I were to poll how many own a radio in their cars, the answer would likely be different, but it still wouldn't change the previous results. And the off-chance of me walking into a convenience store one time during one week and hearing a song on the radio - does that qualify me as being a listener and how is that data captured? If so, that just seems like such a sloppy way of capturing metrics. The data metrics all seem somewhat subjective.

I found this read to be quite interesting: http://www.markramseymedia.com/2014/06/radio-ratings-are-in-a-heap-of-trouble/ . So if there is not a truly accurate way of determining the amount of radio listeners at any given time, and two listeners can skew the numbers for a market as large as Los Angeles, how can any of you confidently say that over 90 percent of Americans listen to radio at least once a week? Better yet, if two listeners can skew a market that large, how can anyone confidently say that there would never be enough niche listeners to program to? How would you even be able to determine this?

So, what are stations proactively doing to literally improve the amount of time a listener is listening or to even attract more listeners? I just feel like the industry is somewhat concerned, but primarily complacent with the status quo, but what kind of foresight is being given in order to, perhaps, disrupt the market? I understand that stations stay on the air because of the advertising spots they sell and there must be some type of audience that is attracted (through inaccurate research methods) in order for advertisers to want to pay; however, it appears that neither party is overly concerned about what the listeners want, but rather who the advertisers want to reach, so in-depth or tailored programming becomes less important. I remember a time when stations created a culture for their listeners and actually went out into the market to find out what was hot with young adults, even if their primary focus was to gain advertising dollars. At least it appeared to be more responsible.

 

[2Son]

I was just looking at the TuneIn page for Phoenix. If you can't find a unique or creative radio station on that list, you're not looking. I often tell people who say they're bored with radio that they should look outside their own biases and sample music they've never heard. That might be jazz, it might be roots rock, it might be R&B. But if the music sounds the same, it's because you've never actually tried something new. There are lots of stations, and sometimes the best ones are non-commercial.

http://tunein.com/radio/Phoenix-r100015/

Nice try, but you can't generalize me simply because you believe to know my listening habits. Why not program a station that plays more than the usual 15-20 artists ad nauseam? That would be a good start. If I'm say, a top-40 listener, I'm going to hear the same artists on Live as I will Kiss which also crossover to Hot AC and Hip-hop. Even KVIT which started off more cutting edge non-commercial has become the same. If that's the case, I guess it doesn't make any difference to you if I listen to your competitor instead of you or just simply not listen at all. Stations that play recurrents are playing the same, tired songs that we've all heard a zillion times. What happened to all of those other songs out there? Radio used to be a platform for listeners to discover new artists or rediscover ones that were initially obscure, but became popular later. Has radio forgotten about that now? Is that due to the many other platforms out there? I highly doubt I am the only person who thinks this way; however, I guess I do not fit into the mold of the typical listener that the radio industry believes exists out there based upon its research methods and captured data.

 

[TheBigA]

So, what are stations proactively doing to literally improve the amount of time a listener is listening or to even attract more listeners?

You're not going to like this answer.

First of all, we're not trying to improve time spent listening. It's just not going to happen. Too many other things for people to do today. TSL started dropping in the 1980s, due to the Walkman and the Gameboy. That should tell you a lot.

What are we doing? We're diversifying our platforms. The electronics industry stopped making fun radios 25 years ago, and the public isn't buying radio-only devices. So we're putting our programming on phones, in podcasts, online, and anywhere people listen.

Second, we're reaching out to listeners via social media. For many on-air folks, it's like another show. They play music on the air, and they speak one-to-one with listeners on Twitter and Facebook. They take listeners behind the scenes.

Third, there's a lot of outreach. I've had this conversation with others in Phoenix, but every weekend, local radio stations are doing remotes from concerts, fairs, shopping malls, and everywhere people gather. They're reaching out, involving listeners in the station, and becoming part of the experience.

Fourth, we watch streaming charts. For the most part, they duplicate the airplay charts, but it's a way of finding new trends early, and then sharing them with listeners. Some new artists have gotten record deals this way. Their songs have connected online, and radio people want to play them. Legally, radio stations can't play unlicensed music, but if the DJs are interested, that's an indication that the labels should at least schedule a showcase.

Fifth, we're adjusting our formats to cater to the changing demographics of radio listeners. The millennial generation is bigger than the baby boom. Their musical interests are more diverse. You're going to see more "mix" stations, and fewer genre specific stations. They're not going to give up streaming for on-air, but they might include it in their mix if they find something interesting. That's a goal worth reaching.

Finally, we're all investing in personalized platforms. iHeart has built one of the biggest with iHeartRadio. CBS has Radio.com. Lots more on the horizon. Lots of podcast platforms that are using on-air talent. So we're not complacent with the status quo.

 

[TheBigA]

Why not program a station that plays more than the usual 15-20 artists ad nauseam?

Depends on the format, but typically there are about 15-20 core artists that the public is interested in. You can see it in the sales charts, concert bookings, and streaming charts. The specifics change from time to time, but if we're talking currents-based stations like CHR or country, you have some core artists. But every playlist I look at has a mixture of new artists. If you look at KMLE, one of their most played songs is by a guy named Chris Lane. Another is by Jon Pardi. Neither are in that same 15-20 list. You'll see the same thing on the pop side. Same with music discovery. All of the currents-based stations are working on building artist discovery on multiple platforms. They play them on air, online, and then schedule them for listener-appreciation concerts. They happen monthly in Phoenix. Don't know about them? Maybe you're not really listening.

If you'll get more specific about what you want, I'll point you in the right direction.

 

[2Son]

Depends on the format, but typically there are about 15-20 core artists that the public is interested in. You can see it in the sales charts, concert bookings, and streaming charts. The specifics change from time to time, but if we're talking currents-based stations like CHR or country, you have some core artists. But every playlist I look at has a mixture of new artists. If you look at KMLE, one of their most played songs is by a guy named Chris Lane. Another is by Jon Pardi. Neither are in that same 15-20 list. You'll see the same thing on the pop side. Same with music discovery. All of the currents-based stations are working on building artist discovery on multiple platforms. They play them on air, online, and then schedule them for listener-appreciation concerts. They happen monthly in Phoenix. Don't know about them? Maybe you're not really listening.

If you'll get more specific about what you want, I'll point you in the right direction.

So I guess my question is, how do you gauge what you perceive the public wants to hear? Which comes first? Are sales a result of what you put on the air or do you put on the air based upon sales? Same with concerts and streaming? Do you play a select amount of artists and determine interest based upon that? How large is the talent pool that the public listens to in order for you to determine what you'll be playing and how are those specific artists initially selected? How large is the audience listener sampling used to determine what you'll keep playing?

 

[TheBigA]

So I guess my question is, how do you gauge what you perceive the public wants to hear?

You're asking a lot of questions. Streaming charts include everyone streaming music on every licensed platform as tabulated by several different sources. iTunes does their own, so does Spotify and Slacker, but they all show up in Billboard. Sales uses every sales platform, including online downloads, as tabulated by RIAA and Nielsen. Concerts are all concerts in all venues as tabulated by Pollstar. It changes daily. We can see everyone's music usage, regardless of how they listen. It gives us a pretty clear indication of what the people want. If we're wrong, there are so many competitors that if any one them finds something we missed, we'll know about it very quickly. This isn't a hobby. It's a full time job.

 

[TheBigA]

Which comes first? Are sales a result of what you put on the air or do you put on the air based upon sales? Same with concerts and streaming?

That's a good question. In today's world, there is a lot of music marketing that takes place, and it's using every possible method, not just airplay. If an artist isn't getting current airplay but wants to get the word out about new music, he might book an appearance on a TV show, do a YouTube launch, appear on a Sirius station, do a multi-city tour, even participate in some major charity event to get attention to the new release. If the artist is successful in getting attention, radio stations might want to grab onto that. By the same token, the music a station plays is probably driving some sales. That's why record labels work so hard for airplay. Keep in mind that record labels aren't owned by media companies any more. They were until the 1980s. Now two of the big 3 labels are owned by foreign companies.

 

[davideduardo]

I do know that when shares are down, people are in jeopardy of losing their jobs; however, I'm getting the impression that some of you are simply brushing me off as ridiculousness.

No, you are more idealistic and unrealistic than ridiculous. You obviously have a greater interest in new music and a variety of sounds than the average person, and are thus in the very small percentage of persons who, today or fifty years ago, is not going to be satisfied by broadcast radio.

I find it sad that as a consumer expressing my opinion, I am basically being told that I have no clue what I am speaking about, that my points are not valid, and it's really not that important. No, I am not a radio professional nor do I pretend to know more than anyone in the industry, but some things just do not make sense to me. I know that radio is still viable, but I find it questionable to be told that listenership has barely declined.

The thing you are lacking, more than anything else, is the experience of either working at or competing with a station that did the sort of things you seem to be advocating. That means more new music, a larger library, perhaps a broader scope for a format or some other form of introducing variety. In my experience, which goes back 58 years in the industry, I have never seen those objectives produce viable results. In fact, this sort of station only survives when it is either non-commercial, in a market with few options or under an owner who is subsidizing what is basically a hobby station.

I've heard that total listenership in PPM markets has declined more than 13 percent since 2010. Is that a significant amount? Yet, I'm being told that the percentage of those who use radio hasn't really changed.

I think you are misinterpreting some data. When the PPM was introduced, listening as measured by total quarter hours (and not by "cume") declined by over 30%. But this was because the PPM more accurately measured the way people listened and showed that when a diary is filled in from memory listening times were generally longer than actual ones and interruptions like breaks at work or putting out the trash at home were not reported.

What measure is currently used to determine the most accurate percentage of listeners in our country who listen to terrestrial radio or is simply owning a radio an indicator?

Nielsen. In 48 of the top 50 markets, the electronic PPM is used, and in about 200 more markets the diary method is used. Nielsen measures the habits of people, and not just listeners are recruited. The fact that there are about 75,000 PPM metered people in the top markets and, for any survey period, about 200,000 diary filler-outers should give a very accurate measurement of how much radio is being listened to both in total reach and in hours spent per day and week.

If I were to randomly poll a group of 100 people I know (or not know) to determine how, how often, or whether or not they listen to radio each week, would I come up with at least 93 percent?

A sample of that size is totally unreliable. If you want a national figure, you have to sample in proportion to the population on things like residence (rural, urban, semi-urban), age groupings, ethnicity, income level, education, gender, language preference (among Hispanics) and so on. To get any sort of accuracy on a national poll I believe a minimum sample size of n = 3,000 would be required. And toss in a degree in sampling and statistics to put it all together.

I'm not sure I would.

I am positive you would not, as people tend to do "personal polls" among friends, co-workers and the like and don't venture into unknown areas and neighborhoods or install a call center to recruit participants

[/QUOTE] And the off-chance of me walking into a convenience store one time during one week and hearing a song on the radio - does that qualify me as being a listener and how is that data captured? If so, that just seems like such a sloppy way of capturing metrics. The data metrics all seem somewhat subjective.[/QUOTE]

In the PPM, if you were in the store long enough to qualify for credit for at least a quarter hour, you would be counted. Of course, the radio has to be loud enough for your PPM "meter" to "hear" the station and identify it. In the diary, such occasional listening seldom, if ever, gets counted because the diary requires that you remember that you heard a specific station and then to write it down in the diary.

I found this read to be quite interesting: http://www.markramseymedia.com/2014/06/radio-ratings-are-in-a-heap-of-trouble/ [/QUOTE]

That article refers to an incident related to one Spanish language station. The inference is that excessive listening to a station was registered. All that does is change the percentage of listening to that station, and making it look better against its competitors than in reality. Such an incident does not affect the percentage of people reported listening to radio... it only affected the ranking of a couple of stations broadcasting in Spanish; to those stations it was a big deal buy it did not affect the total reach of radio in any way.

So if there is not a truly accurate way of determining the amount of radio listeners at any given time, and two listeners can skew the numbers for a market as large as Los Angeles, how can any of you confidently say that over 90 percent of Americans listen to radio at least once a week?

What was skewed was the amount of listening to one single station in a market where around 75 stations show up in the ratings. It did not affect the percentage of people who listen to the radio at all.

Definition of terms:
"Cume" is the number of people who listen for 15 minutes or more at least once a week to a station or to radio in general.
"Share" is the percentage of radio listeners who are listening to a given station during a given period of time.
"Rating" is the percentage of persons, listening or not, who are listening to a given station.

The issue Mark describes relates to the share and rating of a single station, not station cume or market cume (reach).

The bigger point is that there are systems in place to catch and correct anomalies. And with the huge size of the total sample across the US

Better yet, if two listeners can skew a market that large, how can anyone confidently say that there would never be enough niche listeners to program to? How would you even be able to determine this?

There have been only a couple of "corrections" in the PPM in about 8 years of sampling in 48 markets with around 75,000 installed meters nationally at any given time. And, since those problems were remedied, the system is deemed reliable enough for advertisers to put about $10 billion dollars into media buys each year in those PPM markets alone.

So, what are stations proactively doing to literally improve the amount of time a listener is listening or to even attract more listeners?

BigA gave you a good list.

When a station tries to increase time spent listening, they are generally not increasing the TSL for the market as a whole... they are just trying to get a bigger share of individual listener's radio time. They are taking away time from other stations, but the total listening in the market is static. Same goes for increasing the listener count, or cume. You are jut getting more people to spend some time with you, including those who did not previously listen.

Since the average PPM-measured listener uses 5 to 6 stations in a week and as many as 8 to 9 in a longer period, holding one's listeners or getting them to spend more time with your station is the major "game" at radio stations.

I just feel like the industry is somewhat concerned, but primarily complacent with the status quo, but what kind of foresight is being given in order to, perhaps, disrupt the market?

The staff at a local station is concerned with holding listeners and getting them to listen more often. That's their job. The station owner may be concerned with the future of the industry, and will be working to develop new platforms and new revenue generating activities. But since most of the new media options are nowhere profitable, the focus on revenue from over the air radio is going to be continued.

I understand that stations stay on the air because of the advertising spots they sell and there must be some type of audience that is attracted (through inaccurate research methods) in order for advertisers to want to pay;

You are using one incident affecting one month's listening in one market on one station (and which was rapidly corrected) to say that radio audience research is inaccurate. The users of Nielsen, which are the ad agencies, are very happy with the system as a price-setting metric and use it to spend billions.

however, it appears that neither party is overly concerned about what the listeners want, but rather who the advertisers want to reach, so in-depth or tailored programming becomes less important.

If a radio station reaches an audience advertisers do not want to address, then the station will have no revenue. So unless that "in-depth, tailored" programming reaches a lot of people that advertisers want to reach, it will fail.

I remember a time when stations created a culture for their listeners and actually went out into the market to find out what was hot with young adults, even if their primary focus was to gain advertising dollars. At least it appeared to be more responsible.

Radio does that, today, at greater expense and with more accurate methods. While not all stations spend on custom research, those that do test their music library, their current music (if they play currents) as well as perceptions and attitudes using professional research companies like the one Mark Ramsey operates. We don't call record stores or check juke box plays like we did in the 50's and 60's, because we have much better methods to find out how listeners feel about every song, every DJ and everything we do on the air. And we have all manner of stratified data sorts on music sales and downloads, streaming rankers and more.

The real long term issue is that broadcasting is "one to many" with a push model and listeners increasingly want a one-on-one pull model of customized "radio". But there is still no way to make that model work financially.

 

[davideduardo]

So I guess my question is, how do you gauge what you perceive the public wants to hear? Which comes first? Are sales a result of what you put on the air or do you put on the air based upon sales? Same with concerts and streaming? Do you play a select amount of artists and determine interest based upon that? How large is the talent pool that the public listens to in order for you to determine what you'll be playing and how are those specific artists initially selected? How large is the audience listener sampling used to determine what you'll keep playing?

New music is played based on the skills of the station programming staff in identifying songs that might be liked by the station's own audience. Other media exposure helps, but does not guarantee that your specific audience will like a song or new artist.

So stations that play currents add a few promising songs a week, based on the feel of the songs. Obviously, songs by a consistent hit maker are going to be the first choices. But in the end, nearly half the songs any station starts playing are gone within a month or so. And a few more may get a brief amount of play, but have no staying power.

The initial play is the art in radio. It is gut feel, with a knowledge of your station's audience and past reactions. It's all about "does it feel right for my station". These adds are confirmed or rejected based on the research a station gets... everything from national charts to download data to the station's own "callout" (which is really mostly online today) research and music tests.

 

[davideduardo]

Why not program a station that plays more than the usual 15-20 artists ad nauseam? That would be a good start. If I'm say, a top-40 listener, I'm going to hear the same artists on Live as I will Kiss which also crossover to Hot AC and Hip-hop.

The primary listener to CHR (which is what, thanks to R&R, we call Top 40 now) is an 18-44 year old female. That group wants to hear familiar songs they feel good about. They like new music, but if a station is not playing a recognizable hit within a few minutes of tuning in, they are gone.

We know this because we can see the minute to minute PPM data and see what happens when each song plays. If a particular song, over a number of plays, always causes tune-out, we have a hint that it is a stiff.

In fact, a bad song will cause greater tune out in contemporary formats than a commercial break.

 

[2Son]

BigA and David,

Thank you for providing some valuable feedback. I may not agree with every little detail on the processes, but I appreciate the work you put into responding.

 

[davideduardo]

BigA and David,

Thank you for providing some valuable feedback. I may not agree with every little detail on the processes, but I appreciate the work you put into responding.

Thanks for asking the questions. This has been a good topic and everyone has remained civil... which seems to be a rare thing in today's world. I love this kind of discussion as it forces a reaffirmation and reevaluation of one's beliefs, and scrutinizing one's assumptions periodically is reinvigorating.

 

[indieradioguy]

I think this is the worst valley radio has EVER sounded. Little to no uniqueness, originality, nor individuality, music sucks and there's so much crossover from station to station and it's all the worst, vanilla songs that are played, as if we've not heard them a gazillion times already and radio corporations and record companies actually believe we like this crap?? Sorry, won't buy into your musical Stockholm Syndrome anymore and I know there are many others out there like me. You can't even go to a station's website and stream without listening to 7 commercials before a song even plays - by the time commercials end, the song you wanted to listen to has already ended. I know these things are not exclusive to Phoenix radio, but I used to pride myself on knowing that there were some good stations here in the Phoenix market and I supported you for as long as I could with the hopes that some last vestiges of good Phoenix radio would tide me over. I do not really believe that anymore. It's like no one is even trying or seems to care to put out a good product anymore.

Regards,
You're dead to me and I'm signing off

I'm guessing you've never heard KWSS-LP - the only radio station I will ever listen to for music anymore. No commercials, and they play tracks that don't get added to the commercial stations until months later.

With all due respect to other posters: by the time the suits have done their "research" on a track and add it to rotation, it's already old. That's why Desiigner won't get his 15 minutes of fame -- shelf life's already stale by the time commercial radio's suits consider the add.

A lot of the best music out there isn't on the commercial radio anymore -- it's in TV shows and movies. Thankfully, given how radio has dropped the ball, it's now commonplace to hear better music in TV commercials. Has anyone ever heard "Lust For Life" by Iggy Pop on the radio in this town? No. Of course not. But everyone and their grandma know the song from the Carnival cruise line commercial. Pretty pathetic that crackerjack music licensing has pretty much yanked the rug from under so many clueless radio programmers.

 

[TheBigA]

With all due respect to other posters: by the time the suits have done their "research" on a track and add it to rotation, it's already old. That's why Desiigner won't get his 15 minutes of fame -- shelf life's already stale by the time commercial radio's suits consider the add.

If that's the case, then I don't care. For me, I have no interest in a one-hit wonder or someone in search of their 15 minutes of fame. Adding a song for me is an investment. I am investing in an artist's career. If the artist isn't treating his/her music seriously, as a career, for a lifetime, then I'm not interested. There are lots of other musicians who are more committed, and I'll devote my time and resources to them.

 

[DrAkbar]

This has been a good topic and everyone has remained civil.

That's because Los Buckeye Boyz haven't responded yet! KDKB - broad~casting KWSS - narrow~casting. And that's all we have to say.

 

[davideduardo]

With all due respect to other posters: by the time the suits have done their "research" on a track and add it to rotation, it's already old. That's why Desiigner won't get his 15 minutes of fame -- shelf life's already stale by the time commercial radio's suits consider the add.

Although a number of companies have tried to develop "hit predictor" software for the record companies, that concept has never been successful. There is no research that will predict the success of a new song.

The only way to find out if a song is really going to work is to play it. That is where the ability of a station's programming staff comes in to determine which new songs have the greatest potential for being accepted by listeners.

 

[landtuna]

Although a number of companies have tried to develop "hit predictor" software for the record companies, that concept has never been successful. There is no research that will predict the success of a new song.

The only way to find out if a song is really going to work is to play it. That is where the ability of a station's programming staff comes in to determine which new songs have the greatest potential for being accepted by listeners.

Back in the 50's both T-40 stations in my home town used both of these methods to pick their new music. KAIR would have an hour or two weekly to play nothing but new material then judge its reception by phone calls. KTKT left it up to the jocks who would listen to new releases and vote then combine their results with record sales thorough out the city. Not exactly computer science but it did work. I think Casey Kasem tried a similar call-in process when he was on KEWB in the early 60's.

 

[CTListener]

Back in the 50's both T-40 stations in my home town used both of these methods to pick their new music. KAIR would have an hour or two weekly to play nothing but new material then judge its reception by phone calls. KTKT left it up to the jocks who would listen to new releases and vote then combine their results with record sales thorough out the city. Not exactly computer science but it did work. I think Casey Kasem tried a similar call-in process when he was on KEWB in the early 60's.

And WDRC Hartford had one person: Bertha Porter!
http://wdrcobg.com/bertha.html