In my own personal opinion, I understand 101.9 the fan in New York is doing well. But I feel its a waste of a signal since 660 covers the area well and I feel it wasn't right to bring back a rock station, fans long wanted back after having a train wreck of a news station for a year, switch it to sports... But as the saying goes "Radio is not a hobby, its a business"
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Wasted signals
- Thread starter charlestondxman
- Start date
That's another thing I don't get, the latest trend for FM stations to go sports but they are just a simulcast of what's still being broadcast on AM which has much better coverage.
I'm glad I got to experience the old days when radio made sense.
Stations had their own unique personality and were not 'sanitized' down to sound the same because they were part of some huge conglomerate as is the case today.
I'm glad I got to experience the old days when radio made sense.
Stations had their own unique personality and were not 'sanitized' down to sound the same because they were part of some huge conglomerate as is the case today.
Raider57 said:
The move to the FM simulcast of WFAN has to do with the demographics of AM... older and less marketable every year.
There is speculation that the move also clears the way for the AM to split to separate programming with the new CBS Sports network.
gar fla said:
It's not about coverage... since most FM full facilities fully cover their Metro Survey Area... it is about the fact that folks under 50 just don't / won't listen to AM.
But speaking of coverage, most AMs do not cover their market day and night. In fact, only about 150 AMs in the top 100 markets cover 80% of their market day and night. The rest are inadequate facilities, hampered even more by the horrendous noise levels on the AM band today.
gar fla said:
Essentially every time a station expands the playlist beyond the levels common for similar formats, the ratings go down.
People who post about repetition in oldies and classic rock do not tend to be typical listeners and represent a rather extreme fringe that can't be pleased anyway.
The reason why stations have a playlist of a particular size is that those are the only song that the target demo can "agree" on as songs they want to hear on the radio today. All other songs are negative, or disliked by a significant portion of the audience.
Were there more songs that met the criteria, stations would play them.
But the 'demo' people only get to sample them once.
What they do is take small samples of people and have them speak for everyone and I bet most of the people who allegedly like to hear the same worn out songs over and over were not even old enough or even born during the era the songs are from.
And if that's not the case then it sounds like those who decide what we want to hear are too young and not old enough to remember hearing radio in the 60s and 70s.
Remember, generally speaking, the mass media often dictates what the tastes of the public will be instead of the other way around.
If what is played on the radio is always a reflection of what people want to hear, then the Radio Disney is a direct contradiction of that.
Children 6 to 11 or pre-teens today do not listen to AM radio. There are too many modern gadgets to get their music from. The only time they ever hear radio at all is probably if they are in their parents car and the radio happens to be on and it's very unlikely it will be even on AM.
That is plain WRONG. And it's even insulting to those of us from that era who like to have good memories brought back.
That can't happen when we hear only the same worn out songs day in and day out, even many times a day.
Nuff said.
What they do is take small samples of people and have them speak for everyone and I bet most of the people who allegedly like to hear the same worn out songs over and over were not even old enough or even born during the era the songs are from.
And if that's not the case then it sounds like those who decide what we want to hear are too young and not old enough to remember hearing radio in the 60s and 70s.
Remember, generally speaking, the mass media often dictates what the tastes of the public will be instead of the other way around.
If what is played on the radio is always a reflection of what people want to hear, then the Radio Disney is a direct contradiction of that.
Children 6 to 11 or pre-teens today do not listen to AM radio. There are too many modern gadgets to get their music from. The only time they ever hear radio at all is probably if they are in their parents car and the radio happens to be on and it's very unlikely it will be even on AM.
That is plain WRONG. And it's even insulting to those of us from that era who like to have good memories brought back.
That can't happen when we hear only the same worn out songs day in and day out, even many times a day.
Nuff said.
And both of you fellers are right.
If you are between ages 30 and 40, you have your listen-at-work pacifier.
If you ain't, you ain't.
If you are between ages 30 and 40, you have your listen-at-work pacifier.
If you ain't, you ain't.
gar fla said:
If a song is liked, you usually know it and can "score it" in the first 4 to 5 seconds of play of the hook. You don't have to play a familiar song many times to see if it should or should not be on the radio.
Hmm. Just like Arbitron. The technique of statistical, proportional sampling works.
Wrong. A station that does a music test invites, and pays, people who like the general kind of music a station or its competitors plays. They are already partisans of the genre. They are selected to be in the right age group (and certain groups are excluded, such as those that are too young or those over 55) and to be people who listen enough to know the music.
Nobody researches people who were old enough to hear the radio in the 60's because they are now predominantly over 60 years of age and totally useless to a radio station.
In 54 years in radio I have never found that to be true. People seek out what they like, and they don't tolerate bad songs, bad programming or bad oldies...
Radio Disney is targeted at 6 to 11 year olds. Disney knows more about the likes and dislikes of pre-adolescents than any company on the planet.
Childeren 6 to 11 are pre-teens. They are in the one group that has no prejudice against AM. And parents like them to listen to Disney as they know it is safe.
No, it is not wrong... as any of us who have in some time in our career made the mistake of thinking that "variety" is a measure of quantity. We learned, generally by being fired due to low ratings, that "variety" is actually a perception based on the quality of music; play fewer and better scoring songs and you get better ratings.
Here is a more complete, illustrated exposition of how music testing is done:
http://www.americanradiohistory.com/research_AMT.htm
I'd say it's an even swap. AudioGuy. Leave the AMs alone. If someone is willing to pay the light bill for the AM and its fifteen towers, that's their option ; that's their ante into the revenue game.
* * * * * * *
Perhaps WAY off-topic, but since David Eduardo is aboard this thread, maybe he knows :
What is the highest-rated FM translator? Are there any with ratings? And they would have their own unique PPM-code fingerprint, right ?
(We often listen to the WRTI Philadelphia translator in Pottsville, on 99.1, for their jazz from 6PM to 6 in the morning. Pretty faithful signal hereabouts. On their first days at 99.1, I called them up to request a song. The jock on duty was stunned. He actually asked me, 'You mean that's (99.1) on the AIR already?!?'
Lol -- I knew it before HE did ?!?)
* * * * * * *
Perhaps WAY off-topic, but since David Eduardo is aboard this thread, maybe he knows :
What is the highest-rated FM translator? Are there any with ratings? And they would have their own unique PPM-code fingerprint, right ?
(We often listen to the WRTI Philadelphia translator in Pottsville, on 99.1, for their jazz from 6PM to 6 in the morning. Pretty faithful signal hereabouts. On their first days at 99.1, I called them up to request a song. The jock on duty was stunned. He actually asked me, 'You mean that's (99.1) on the AIR already?!?'
Lol -- I knew it before HE did ?!?)
Steve Green NEPA said:
At present, I think it is the translator for KLZT-HD2 in Austin with just under a 3 share and 15th rank in the market.
That was interesting reading and it brings up even more questions.
The old chicken or the egg question comes to mind. They respond favorably to songs they are familiar with. So many of these worn out songs have been staple songs on radio for a long time. Of course they are familiar with them.
Lab conditions and real life seldom are the same. A person will give a positive reaction to a song in a survey setting but that doesn't equate to them wanting to hear that song constantly in their regular lives.
If these surveys use people in their 30s, they are not even old enough to remember the 70s or the 60s and the songs they pick will be the oldies they are familiar with only from hearing them in the media, in movies or TV commercials. That's a far cry from someone my age or older given a sample of music where we can actually remember the old songs.
And remember, those conduction the survey pick the list of songs the people choose from so that automatically means there is no scientific method being used which results in an inaccurate picture of what millions of people really like.
And just as I thought. It's not a so called 'fringe' way of thinking to like real variety in your music.
I've heard from numerous other sources too that these surveys that determine what an entire nation likes are determined by only about 4,000 people and the ad agencies also have a big influence too.
Gotta like the replies too. These are the real voices of listeners.
http://www.sodahead.com/fun/why-do-...es stations play the same songs over and over
This one really explains it well. ;D
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2001/nov/08/who-decides-what-songs-are-played-oldies-stations/
A lot of good insight here by many others who don't like hearing the same songs over and over,
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-164473.html
One last time. People do not like hearing the same songs all the time.
It only seems that way because this is another instance of where people have their tastes prescribed for them.
It's the same psychology behind why it seems so many people like violent movies these days. Contrary to popular belief, it's not 'what the people WANT'. It's what the people in Hollywood have decided we are supposed to want.
Since it's in so many movies, it gives the illusion that people like to see.
The few decide what the many will get.
Steve Green NEPA said:
Personally, I'd like to see something along the lines of what the CRTC does....grant licences to broadcasters who propose to program to an underserved demo. Which in the case of AM radio probably means the over-50 crowd. I doubt it it would work, however, since underserved demo automatically means a demo....regardless of what it is....that advertisers and agencies don't want.
WCMT-AM in Martin, TN, has an FM translator at 100.5. So I would not consider that one a "wasted" frequency. However, their sister stations (all of them FMs) have translators that are completely unnecessary, and do nothing to increase the reaches of the "translated" stations. I suspect that Paul Tinkle bought them up to prevent Terry Hailey of WENK from having any of them. WENK-AM does not have a translator, although they broadcast online.
http://www.wcmt.com
http://www.wcmt.com
WWKR's 92.7 translator in Ludington is somewhat useless since K-Rock already has a good signal in Ludington. This translator would be better suited as a rebroadcaster of sister station WKLA-AM (1450). In fact, I think 92.7 gets out farther than 1450.
There would be fewer useless translators if co-owned translators didn't have to be located within the primary station's 60dBU.
There would be fewer useless translators if co-owned translators didn't have to be located within the primary station's 60dBU.
gar fla, why are you constantly bashing Top 40 radio? You need to direct your complaints to Todd Storz or Gordon McLendon, who discovered (circa 1950) that people liked to listen to certain songs (called "hits") on jukeboxes and got unbelievable ratings when they changed their stations to the new format of a very limited playlist.
I really enjoy your posts and have checked out your DX videos a lot, so I'm probably not getting something here. But, I honestly don't understand your dislike of such a format and want a return to the "good old days" at the same time. For a lot of people here, the "good old days" IS Top 40 with its energized creative playing of the hits. Please share - what are the "good old days" for you?
I really enjoy your posts and have checked out your DX videos a lot, so I'm probably not getting something here. But, I honestly don't understand your dislike of such a format and want a return to the "good old days" at the same time. For a lot of people here, the "good old days" IS Top 40 with its energized creative playing of the hits. Please share - what are the "good old days" for you?
While I agree that there are probably only a few hundred older records that really test well, the reason most of these persist is the self fulfilling prophecy of the testing process itself. If you never heard them, then they are "new" oldies.
If there were some way to reintroduce other older records that have fallen by the wayside, I am certain that with the right testing, as if they were "new" records, a few hundred to a few thousand more records could be found to test well under the new testing process.
I know for a fact that even scientific research can be and has been faked, or is in some other way scientifically and or statistically invalid. Why would I believe that such unscientific and improperly controlled record testing research is "unimpeachable"? The only reason I can think of is that no better research has YET come forward.
If there were some way to reintroduce other older records that have fallen by the wayside, I am certain that with the right testing, as if they were "new" records, a few hundred to a few thousand more records could be found to test well under the new testing process.
I know for a fact that even scientific research can be and has been faked, or is in some other way scientifically and or statistically invalid. Why would I believe that such unscientific and improperly controlled record testing research is "unimpeachable"? The only reason I can think of is that no better research has YET come forward.
For me, the good old days were the late 60s and the 70s.
It's understandable that a top 40 station will play a lot of the current top hits over and over because the songs are still new and people want to hear what's new.
But oldies stations play songs in retrospect that cover at least a couple decades and there are countless big hits that they ignore, many by top well known artists of the day, so many top 5 and #1 songs too we never hear anymore.
To me, songs bring back memories, especially forgotten memories, better than photos and with all those songs of the past that we associate with a specific memory, the oldies stations seem to act as though they didn't even exist and a small group of people (many of which were not even born yet back then) decide for the rest of the millions of us what songs we will hear.
I've already presented plenty of evidence to show why this is and that so many people don't like hearing the same worn out songs all the time.
If I had a dollar for every time I've heard songs like 'Margaritaville', 'Brown Eyed Girl', 'You Can't Hurry Love', 'What A Fool Believes', 'Sweet Home Alabama', 'I Will Survive', 'September', 'Play That Funky Music', etc, I could take a nice vacation.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
Schroedingers Cat said:
I wouldn't worry about the nay-sayers. People tend to break out of molds and boxes people try to put them in. Sometimes rather forcefully. Great music will attract new fans as the years go by. If radio owners are too stupid, too set in their ways, too much in love with their carefully planned research leading to foregone conclusions, they will miss the trend back to music and musical styles that will stand the test of time. Whether it is a Hailee Nicole -17 year old professional model who listens to oldies with her friends, the absolutely massive teen audience that watched "Teen Beach Movie" - a 60's style musical (higher ratings than High School Musical). Maybe it is Ariana Grande adopting a 50's personna for some of her songs, one of the daughters of Kelsey Grammar who is an avid oldies fan - there is a groundswell of support for the old songs and old style music. A wise station owner will pick up on the trends and capitalize on them. A foolish station owner will say billions of dollars of research, focus groups say the 60's are dead - lets go play golf and hob-nob with the big whigs and be "productive" by wiping the industry clear of all oldies. And put more sports, talk, foreign language, and other garbage on the air for mass consumption by people with IQ's under 70. Meanwhile, KLUV, KONO, KRTH, WCBS keep right on making big bucks on supposedly obsolete music programmed to people with one foot in the grave and the other on a walking stick - who never buy anything and are so set in their ways they will never buy anything new or listen to wonderful country, hip-hop, top-40. Except they are all buying Rosetta Stone so they can learn foreign languages and gratefully listen to the ever increasing numbers of foreign language stations in the US.
- Status