Re: Gut programming is arrogant
>
> Dave, slow down, here! We're not talking about foreign
> countries! We're talking about Houston, Dallas, San
> Antonio, Birmingham, Des Moines, etc.
I don't see why looking at an even broader picture to be harmful. I was told that looking at subsets was so, so I expanded the horizon to include noth just the US but the world. As I said, certain things are universal.
>
>
> Like I said, Dave....we're talking to two different groups
> of listeners.
>
OK, my group consists of "people." Mostly in the US. What does your group consist of?
>
> Good point about the gold, but, the gold isn't what I'm
> refering to. In fact, if it's been a long time since a
> "gold" tune has been heard, you can still "sell" it without
> patronizing the listener. It just takes a little
> intelligence.....something that's not, generally, found in
> management.
Yet, when you actually talk to the listener in any but anecdotal situations, they do not want this information 99% of the time. RDS would be a better solution. Or using, "If you ever whant to know what we are p;laying and where to buy it, check our website at..." to drive traffic to the web. The fact is, the traffic will be limited, and the number of people who want to know specific titles is such a small percent of listeners as to be boring to the rest. On an 18-34 staiton, there may be a few percent who want the market close info, but most won't. And doing that feature, over time, will irritate the core listener.
>
>
> >
> > Actually, it is too much talk and boring content in most
> > formats. If you look at real time programming with the
> kind
> > of EKG display used for testing political speeches or TV
> > commercials, you see a huge fall-off in appeal with
> > multi-song backsells, and very limited appeal of
> backselling
> > artist and title.
> >
>
> Oh, geeze, Dave. Get your head out of the clouds! This
> psychobabble is grating on me. This is freakin' RADIO! Not
> Space Shuttle science. Trust your gut!
The most frequent comment I hear among programmers is that getting listener input is so valuable and will blow away the gut technique.
In fact, gut programming is supreme arrogance. It is saying, "I know what you want and I am going to make you like it." That may have worked for the Politburo in the USSR, but not on radio.
Being able to tell what listeners like and what they don't so one can be improved and continued and the other modified or discontinued is, simply, allowing the listener to be part of programming.
However, one has to measure the listener in a listener's environment... actual listening, not with a high-school like questionnaire or randomless anecdotal evidence.
> Example...when you
> say you can't distinguish voice-tracked content from live,
> you're listening to the mechanics....not the SOUL of the
> content.
I have worked in the past with stations with more limited resorces, where we used weekday talent on weekends, and even voice traced weekdays so we could get the talent on the street. We never, ever, heard a comment about the staiton not being live. No one could tell the difference, as the tracking was done very carefully, listening to tips and tails and giving adequate time to prep. The station cumed a million, about 40% more than any other station.
Well done, tracking is very effective if the format is done well, if the approach fits listener expectations and if the few "must be live" elements can be done in other fashions... like weather from another party, contests done by a boar-op with winner drops, etc.
> It's perfectly okay for a jock to, occasionally,
> say, "Um", or to stumble over a word, laugh, or even step on
> a vocal.
Sometimes. Sounding natural is important. Stepping on the songs, wich is what most listeners came for, is not... any more than occasionally driving on the left side of the road is OK.
> If he's clever enough to come up with a great
> recovery, the audience was just entertained. No one died.
> No blood was spilled, and someone got a laugh out of it. My
> old friend, J R Nelson of Detroit, was a master at that sort
> of thing.
About 0.1% of jocks can do this. In most cases, it is better to try to conform to what we know are realities. On exceptional occasions, all the rules can be broken because this creates an attractive option. Usually, breaking rules is like letting a puppy go on the carpet... the result of the rule breaking is highly unappealing.
>
>
> Bully for you! A couple of million would've gone a long way
> toward buying some better talent.....both, on and off the
> air talent. Maybe "half of all radio stations" wouldn't be
> losing money.
We have some of the best talent in the biz, and totally live 24/7 operations. You missed where I mentioned we did not even know how to track?
#1 mornings in markets like LA and Houston and Dallas and Phoenix and San Diego and such is hardly being in need of better talent. The research component is exactly what allows the talent to stay in contact with listener taste rather than playing to the sidekicks in the studio.
>
> I didn't say Mexico didn't have that stuff. However, I am
> very aware of Mexico's racial divide....and it's huge!
There is no racial divide. Therre is an income divide. Mexico is not racist, it is classist. An indigenous person with money is the same as a Spanish origin person with money, and 80% of the country is mestizo.
> It
> translates, directly, into a huge economic divide, (witness
> the influx of illegal aliens into the U.S.). In Mexico,
> there is a far greater dependence on radio, than there is in
> the U.S.
The migration has to do with income and the failure of the ejido system in Mexico and one of the world's highest concentrations of rural uneducated poor. It has nothing to do with race.
Actually, radio is used slightly less in Mexico than the US... due partly to the fact that no owner wants to program to "E" socioeconomic level because they are economically unproductive. And, with less stations per capita than the US, many rural areas are not well served.
>
> Yeah, and explain to me why, independently owned stations
> can't engage, by way of business association, in program
> sharing. It's been done for years. But, what has happened
> in the USA, with consolodation, is the demise of local,
> privately-owned radio, and, to a great extent, minority
> ownership.
Most of these are bank-related rather than radio related. radio does not finance radio. Banks and VC's do.
On the other hand, outside of the top rated markets, there is lots of local ownership. There are over 3000 owners in the US, only a few of them having large numbers of stations.
>
> >
> > You have OBVIOUSLY not been in Mexico lately.
> >
>
> Obviously? Wrong!
Sorry. Then I should say, you did not make valid observations. I have corrected several of them in this post... such as radio usage, race vs. class, etc.
>
> >The cities have every convenience that is available in the
> US or
> > Europe. Cable, satellite, DSL (cheaper, in fact) and a
> much
> > more modern phone system in some cities. And, as I said,
> > there is a huge urban middle class.
>
> I hear they have hot & cold running water, too!
That is borderline racist... the middle class in Mexico lives far better than the middle class in the US. Private schools, bilingual, have maid, etc., etc.
>
>
> > In the US, on the other hand, about half of all stations
> have not been
> >profitable from as far back as the 50's. Too many
> stations, complicated by >the " arrival" of FM, Docket
> 80-90, and other related factors over-radioed the >US.
> >
>
> Aha! There's the problem! You are so right! Now, how to
> fix the problem. Importing Atlanta programming to six, or
> more, radio stations in Houston isn't how to fix sliding
> numbers. You have to be local, local, local. And, Dave,
> try to understand this: YOU HAVE TO BE LIVE!
The analogy I always use is Snooky Lanson and Gizelle McKenzie in the 50's TV series, "Your Hit Parade" which ran for 9 years and presented Amer4ica's hits on national TV from coast to coast.
Most things in America are homogenized and play as well in Minneapolis as in Mobile... so the AC concept that works in Atlanta with only local research will work in Houston.
Radio began as a national medium in the 20's and 30's, and hits in music and entertainment are almost entirely national... with minor variations. There is nothing wrong with having run Seinfeld in 200+ markets each week, right?
>
> Here's how to fix it:
>
> 1) Quit paying 4/5ths of your on-air budget to the morning
> show. Back off of that a bit. Take some of that money and
> beef up the other dayparts. If you want to make your
> station more than just "noise on in the background", you've
> got to be live, topical, entertaining, AND, play a boatload
> of music. Yes, Dave, you can do that.
This works on some occasions. However, if you don't pay the morning show well, it will go to the competitor. And, in many if not most formats, enertainment is not desired in all dayparts. I have done both, and each is only appropriate in specific formats and situations. In general, a large majority of listeners want two radio stations on the same frequency... fun in the morning, music the rest of the day.
>
> 2) Get out in the public. Send your promotions people out,
> during the day, where they can be seen, and get the jocks
> out there, too. They need to understand that working out
> their hitch with the station from the studio just won't cut
> it. They're going to have to get out and meet the
> listeners. Meet them at work, at the convenience store, at
> the concerts, at public service events. But, for gawd's
> sake, do it!
Some formats are not street formats. With one oldies station, we only do community events. On another "country" format we have 10 vehicles and a team of 30 street people doing van hits. However, a street presence without the best format will do nothing for you.
>
> 3) Cut back on the freakin' consultants. A consultant in
> San Diego doesn't know crap about the Houston audience, and,
> I'm sorry Dave, there isn't a budget big enough to place an
> out-of-town-consultant in town long enough to make him
> understand the local culture. You can only do that by
> living here.
A consultant brings a wide variety of situations and outcomes to the table, and can avoid costly mistakes.
As to living there, that is baloney.
My first owned station was in a country where I had lived for 6 months. #1 instantly. I recently did a station in Argentina, where we found out what the listeners wanted, and what no one local had thought of doing. Cume in 60 days, 4.2 million. Rank: #1 for 50 books. I can repeat such stories over and over... from CHR in Birmingham to AC in LA to "country" in Houston.
Good radio knowledge combined with the best radio minds will win.
A few years ago, I was called to program a start up in Karachi. I said, "I am really clueless on the culture, the language and the religious considerations." They said, "We know all that. We want someone who knows radio."
> I watched ABC-owned KXYZ & KAUM get their
> signals knocked into the dirt by KILT & KNUZ because ABC
> couldn't figure out that programming Houston stations from
> New Yawk just doesn't work.
Only one station can be #1. Some companies have a better corporate cultures for workiing in different markets. Some fail some places and not others. The same ABC has one of America's most marvelous AM's, KGO. So, probably, we can look at local management for the Houston issue... a local problem, not a national one.
> It didn't work back then....and
> it won't work today. Program locally! If you don't trust
> your program director and music director to get it right for
> the local market, then maybe, you should own a TCBY.
Or, maybe, you should stop giving the first programming position to a promising person... outside help support to new talent. And most stations, no matter how corporate, researches locally and programs locally... with the support of all the talent they can marshall.
>
>
>
> > Mexico has fewer stations per capita than the US, and
> radio,
> > via consolidation, has always maintained a higher presence
>
> > than the industry in the US.
> >
>
> Mexican consolodation is a requirement, because, there are
> darned few people, down there, who can afford to get into
> the ownership game.
Give me a break. Consolidation happened because of the way advertising is bought. Agencies buy radio packages, not individual stations. This came out of the TV model, which is national and bought in packages.
Mexico has a huge entreperneurial class. And there are hundreds of thousands of people who could buy radio staitons if they wanted them. The fact is that consolidation made radio more efficient by satisfying an advertiser need.
> > In addition, Mexico intelligently did not licence the
> > quantity of inferior signals that the US did... low power
> > directional daytimers on 1550, Class A FMs in major
> markets,
> > and such things that inhibit the ability to compete. They
> > also allowed up to 250,000 watts on AM and up to the same
> > ERP on FM so listeners get good signals.
>
> True enough! But, that's in large part to the way the
> population clusters are laid out, in Mexico. You have
> incredibly large cities, and vast expanses of desolate area.
Actually, you have the opposite. Only one huge city, two cities with over 2 million, and only 4 to 5 with over a million.
Mexico has about about six times the percentage of rural population than the US does, and this is where the poverty is.
> Those signals have to go far. You don't have a lot of
> small towns with the kind of business activity that would
> support a small station, as was the case, here, in the US.
Again, wrong. Small market radio is vibrant in Mexico. Just get a copy of Medios Publicitarios Mexicanos and you will see the quantity of local staitons in towns of under 20,000. This includes several dozen in indigenous langauges.
Only the big city stations are high power. The local AMs and Class A FMs are in the smaller towns.
In fact, the model is very much like the US. There is very little listening to distant signals from out of market. The 250 kw station in Mexico City has that power to cover, interference free, the large metro... not other cities and states.
> Let's talk Mexico, and Dominican Republic, and Tibet, if you
> want to. You're comparing apples to oranges, and you're
> still coming up with a half-baked fruit salad.
Only because your assumptions, based on gut, are not accurate, whether about Mexico, morning shows or music. You sound a great deal like the jock who will not shut up, despite the format of the station and the daypart: the ego says talk, while the reality of the listener says "no."
>
>
> Dave, slow down, here! We're not talking about foreign
> countries! We're talking about Houston, Dallas, San
> Antonio, Birmingham, Des Moines, etc.
I don't see why looking at an even broader picture to be harmful. I was told that looking at subsets was so, so I expanded the horizon to include noth just the US but the world. As I said, certain things are universal.
>
>
> Like I said, Dave....we're talking to two different groups
> of listeners.
>
OK, my group consists of "people." Mostly in the US. What does your group consist of?
>
> Good point about the gold, but, the gold isn't what I'm
> refering to. In fact, if it's been a long time since a
> "gold" tune has been heard, you can still "sell" it without
> patronizing the listener. It just takes a little
> intelligence.....something that's not, generally, found in
> management.
Yet, when you actually talk to the listener in any but anecdotal situations, they do not want this information 99% of the time. RDS would be a better solution. Or using, "If you ever whant to know what we are p;laying and where to buy it, check our website at..." to drive traffic to the web. The fact is, the traffic will be limited, and the number of people who want to know specific titles is such a small percent of listeners as to be boring to the rest. On an 18-34 staiton, there may be a few percent who want the market close info, but most won't. And doing that feature, over time, will irritate the core listener.
>
>
> >
> > Actually, it is too much talk and boring content in most
> > formats. If you look at real time programming with the
> kind
> > of EKG display used for testing political speeches or TV
> > commercials, you see a huge fall-off in appeal with
> > multi-song backsells, and very limited appeal of
> backselling
> > artist and title.
> >
>
> Oh, geeze, Dave. Get your head out of the clouds! This
> psychobabble is grating on me. This is freakin' RADIO! Not
> Space Shuttle science. Trust your gut!
The most frequent comment I hear among programmers is that getting listener input is so valuable and will blow away the gut technique.
In fact, gut programming is supreme arrogance. It is saying, "I know what you want and I am going to make you like it." That may have worked for the Politburo in the USSR, but not on radio.
Being able to tell what listeners like and what they don't so one can be improved and continued and the other modified or discontinued is, simply, allowing the listener to be part of programming.
However, one has to measure the listener in a listener's environment... actual listening, not with a high-school like questionnaire or randomless anecdotal evidence.
> Example...when you
> say you can't distinguish voice-tracked content from live,
> you're listening to the mechanics....not the SOUL of the
> content.
I have worked in the past with stations with more limited resorces, where we used weekday talent on weekends, and even voice traced weekdays so we could get the talent on the street. We never, ever, heard a comment about the staiton not being live. No one could tell the difference, as the tracking was done very carefully, listening to tips and tails and giving adequate time to prep. The station cumed a million, about 40% more than any other station.
Well done, tracking is very effective if the format is done well, if the approach fits listener expectations and if the few "must be live" elements can be done in other fashions... like weather from another party, contests done by a boar-op with winner drops, etc.
> It's perfectly okay for a jock to, occasionally,
> say, "Um", or to stumble over a word, laugh, or even step on
> a vocal.
Sometimes. Sounding natural is important. Stepping on the songs, wich is what most listeners came for, is not... any more than occasionally driving on the left side of the road is OK.
> If he's clever enough to come up with a great
> recovery, the audience was just entertained. No one died.
> No blood was spilled, and someone got a laugh out of it. My
> old friend, J R Nelson of Detroit, was a master at that sort
> of thing.
About 0.1% of jocks can do this. In most cases, it is better to try to conform to what we know are realities. On exceptional occasions, all the rules can be broken because this creates an attractive option. Usually, breaking rules is like letting a puppy go on the carpet... the result of the rule breaking is highly unappealing.
>
>
> Bully for you! A couple of million would've gone a long way
> toward buying some better talent.....both, on and off the
> air talent. Maybe "half of all radio stations" wouldn't be
> losing money.
We have some of the best talent in the biz, and totally live 24/7 operations. You missed where I mentioned we did not even know how to track?
#1 mornings in markets like LA and Houston and Dallas and Phoenix and San Diego and such is hardly being in need of better talent. The research component is exactly what allows the talent to stay in contact with listener taste rather than playing to the sidekicks in the studio.
>
> I didn't say Mexico didn't have that stuff. However, I am
> very aware of Mexico's racial divide....and it's huge!
There is no racial divide. Therre is an income divide. Mexico is not racist, it is classist. An indigenous person with money is the same as a Spanish origin person with money, and 80% of the country is mestizo.
> It
> translates, directly, into a huge economic divide, (witness
> the influx of illegal aliens into the U.S.). In Mexico,
> there is a far greater dependence on radio, than there is in
> the U.S.
The migration has to do with income and the failure of the ejido system in Mexico and one of the world's highest concentrations of rural uneducated poor. It has nothing to do with race.
Actually, radio is used slightly less in Mexico than the US... due partly to the fact that no owner wants to program to "E" socioeconomic level because they are economically unproductive. And, with less stations per capita than the US, many rural areas are not well served.
>
> Yeah, and explain to me why, independently owned stations
> can't engage, by way of business association, in program
> sharing. It's been done for years. But, what has happened
> in the USA, with consolodation, is the demise of local,
> privately-owned radio, and, to a great extent, minority
> ownership.
Most of these are bank-related rather than radio related. radio does not finance radio. Banks and VC's do.
On the other hand, outside of the top rated markets, there is lots of local ownership. There are over 3000 owners in the US, only a few of them having large numbers of stations.
>
> >
> > You have OBVIOUSLY not been in Mexico lately.
> >
>
> Obviously? Wrong!
Sorry. Then I should say, you did not make valid observations. I have corrected several of them in this post... such as radio usage, race vs. class, etc.
>
> >The cities have every convenience that is available in the
> US or
> > Europe. Cable, satellite, DSL (cheaper, in fact) and a
> much
> > more modern phone system in some cities. And, as I said,
> > there is a huge urban middle class.
>
> I hear they have hot & cold running water, too!
That is borderline racist... the middle class in Mexico lives far better than the middle class in the US. Private schools, bilingual, have maid, etc., etc.
>
>
> > In the US, on the other hand, about half of all stations
> have not been
> >profitable from as far back as the 50's. Too many
> stations, complicated by >the " arrival" of FM, Docket
> 80-90, and other related factors over-radioed the >US.
> >
>
> Aha! There's the problem! You are so right! Now, how to
> fix the problem. Importing Atlanta programming to six, or
> more, radio stations in Houston isn't how to fix sliding
> numbers. You have to be local, local, local. And, Dave,
> try to understand this: YOU HAVE TO BE LIVE!
The analogy I always use is Snooky Lanson and Gizelle McKenzie in the 50's TV series, "Your Hit Parade" which ran for 9 years and presented Amer4ica's hits on national TV from coast to coast.
Most things in America are homogenized and play as well in Minneapolis as in Mobile... so the AC concept that works in Atlanta with only local research will work in Houston.
Radio began as a national medium in the 20's and 30's, and hits in music and entertainment are almost entirely national... with minor variations. There is nothing wrong with having run Seinfeld in 200+ markets each week, right?
>
> Here's how to fix it:
>
> 1) Quit paying 4/5ths of your on-air budget to the morning
> show. Back off of that a bit. Take some of that money and
> beef up the other dayparts. If you want to make your
> station more than just "noise on in the background", you've
> got to be live, topical, entertaining, AND, play a boatload
> of music. Yes, Dave, you can do that.
This works on some occasions. However, if you don't pay the morning show well, it will go to the competitor. And, in many if not most formats, enertainment is not desired in all dayparts. I have done both, and each is only appropriate in specific formats and situations. In general, a large majority of listeners want two radio stations on the same frequency... fun in the morning, music the rest of the day.
>
> 2) Get out in the public. Send your promotions people out,
> during the day, where they can be seen, and get the jocks
> out there, too. They need to understand that working out
> their hitch with the station from the studio just won't cut
> it. They're going to have to get out and meet the
> listeners. Meet them at work, at the convenience store, at
> the concerts, at public service events. But, for gawd's
> sake, do it!
Some formats are not street formats. With one oldies station, we only do community events. On another "country" format we have 10 vehicles and a team of 30 street people doing van hits. However, a street presence without the best format will do nothing for you.
>
> 3) Cut back on the freakin' consultants. A consultant in
> San Diego doesn't know crap about the Houston audience, and,
> I'm sorry Dave, there isn't a budget big enough to place an
> out-of-town-consultant in town long enough to make him
> understand the local culture. You can only do that by
> living here.
A consultant brings a wide variety of situations and outcomes to the table, and can avoid costly mistakes.
As to living there, that is baloney.
My first owned station was in a country where I had lived for 6 months. #1 instantly. I recently did a station in Argentina, where we found out what the listeners wanted, and what no one local had thought of doing. Cume in 60 days, 4.2 million. Rank: #1 for 50 books. I can repeat such stories over and over... from CHR in Birmingham to AC in LA to "country" in Houston.
Good radio knowledge combined with the best radio minds will win.
A few years ago, I was called to program a start up in Karachi. I said, "I am really clueless on the culture, the language and the religious considerations." They said, "We know all that. We want someone who knows radio."
> I watched ABC-owned KXYZ & KAUM get their
> signals knocked into the dirt by KILT & KNUZ because ABC
> couldn't figure out that programming Houston stations from
> New Yawk just doesn't work.
Only one station can be #1. Some companies have a better corporate cultures for workiing in different markets. Some fail some places and not others. The same ABC has one of America's most marvelous AM's, KGO. So, probably, we can look at local management for the Houston issue... a local problem, not a national one.
> It didn't work back then....and
> it won't work today. Program locally! If you don't trust
> your program director and music director to get it right for
> the local market, then maybe, you should own a TCBY.
Or, maybe, you should stop giving the first programming position to a promising person... outside help support to new talent. And most stations, no matter how corporate, researches locally and programs locally... with the support of all the talent they can marshall.
>
>
>
> > Mexico has fewer stations per capita than the US, and
> radio,
> > via consolidation, has always maintained a higher presence
>
> > than the industry in the US.
> >
>
> Mexican consolodation is a requirement, because, there are
> darned few people, down there, who can afford to get into
> the ownership game.
Give me a break. Consolidation happened because of the way advertising is bought. Agencies buy radio packages, not individual stations. This came out of the TV model, which is national and bought in packages.
Mexico has a huge entreperneurial class. And there are hundreds of thousands of people who could buy radio staitons if they wanted them. The fact is that consolidation made radio more efficient by satisfying an advertiser need.
> > In addition, Mexico intelligently did not licence the
> > quantity of inferior signals that the US did... low power
> > directional daytimers on 1550, Class A FMs in major
> markets,
> > and such things that inhibit the ability to compete. They
> > also allowed up to 250,000 watts on AM and up to the same
> > ERP on FM so listeners get good signals.
>
> True enough! But, that's in large part to the way the
> population clusters are laid out, in Mexico. You have
> incredibly large cities, and vast expanses of desolate area.
Actually, you have the opposite. Only one huge city, two cities with over 2 million, and only 4 to 5 with over a million.
Mexico has about about six times the percentage of rural population than the US does, and this is where the poverty is.
> Those signals have to go far. You don't have a lot of
> small towns with the kind of business activity that would
> support a small station, as was the case, here, in the US.
Again, wrong. Small market radio is vibrant in Mexico. Just get a copy of Medios Publicitarios Mexicanos and you will see the quantity of local staitons in towns of under 20,000. This includes several dozen in indigenous langauges.
Only the big city stations are high power. The local AMs and Class A FMs are in the smaller towns.
In fact, the model is very much like the US. There is very little listening to distant signals from out of market. The 250 kw station in Mexico City has that power to cover, interference free, the large metro... not other cities and states.
> Let's talk Mexico, and Dominican Republic, and Tibet, if you
> want to. You're comparing apples to oranges, and you're
> still coming up with a half-baked fruit salad.
Only because your assumptions, based on gut, are not accurate, whether about Mexico, morning shows or music. You sound a great deal like the jock who will not shut up, despite the format of the station and the daypart: the ego says talk, while the reality of the listener says "no."
>
