WBOS

[CTListener]

The early 2000s delivered horrible bands that didn't pan out. That's the record industry's fault.

Horrible bands = Bands you don't like? If so, shouldn't you be grateful they didn't pan out?

Again, you're ignoring the evidence showing that young, white, male America -- rock's foundation demo -- has been moving away from "dad's music" for the past 20 years. Rock is no longer the dominant angry music of teenage frustration and rebellion.

 

[davideduardo]

David discussed outliers and loyal listeners. I say two things to that.

1. In research, ignoring an outlier is grounds for bad research. You don't ignore an outlier. You acknowledge it's existence. You monitor to see if that outlier grows to become a norm. No, you don't format for that single outlier. But if that outlier grows, it's something to take notice.

The issue with outliers is that they are, individually, each different. There is no trend. Outliers are like meteorites... random, unpredictable and potentially destructive. Outliers will never be satisfiable because they don't much like the core music that everyone else in the test loves.

If there is a trend growing, it has to grasp the majority, even if a portion of them, to become significant. What you see in music testing with potentially trending music styles or variants, is that some of your core will be early adopters and, if they all score that music well, you have an indication of something that may be either adopted or watched carefully.

2. Loyalty isn't owed. It's earned. Your industry has a history of slapping loyal listeners in the face for what's best for your wallet. You're a service industry. You need us to continue, not the other way around.

No, radio is in the advertising industry (except for non-commercial stations, which are not the subject here). Listeners are the product we deliver to advertisers. To attract advertisers, we have to deliver lots of listeners. That means doing something on the air that many will like.

Or has streaming and satellite not hurt your industry in some ways? I was loyal to WBCN. What did your industry do? It stripmined the station down to playing only a handful of new songs paid for by the record industry (legal or not), whittled the station down to those 5 to 10 songs, then told me that I'd rather be hearing sports talk.

If a station finds that its listener base is declining, then it finds ways to either rebuild or to find a new audience.

Your suggestion that the record industry is paying for the airplay of library cuts is absurd. And it's offensive to all of us who have ethically worked to build a good programming product that attracts listeners. The fact is that rock is declining and has been for three decades. If you look at the 2000 and 2010 Edison studies on music trends over the prior 10 years, you see that clearly. America is becoming a rhythm nation, not a rock nation.

Add to that the fragmentation in Alt and it becomes hard to find a core audience in that sector.

So, I as the listener don't owe you any loyalty. I choose when to change my preferences, not you as an industry. I owe the bands that I like loyalty. You're a medium for me to enjoy those bands. You provide the service, then I become loyal to the service. To me that's a sense of narcisim to think we owe anything to you.

Conclusion: you are an outlier.

As to "loyalty" that is a term that radio in general does not use. We use our own language of P1, P2, P3 and so on meaning "Preference Levels". A P1 is the station a listener uses more than any other, and so on. But for a light radio user, that may mean 3 hours a week, and for a heavy user it may mean 40 hours. So we know that 80 to 90% of our listening comes from about 40 to 50% of the listeners.

Our focus is on heavier users because we find that you can not make light users into heavy ones as the amount of listening is often determined by things like not being able to listen at work.

And this week's P1 may be next week's P2 or P3. Most listeners, particularly heavy ones, have fluctuating usage of stations and the PPM, with an ongoing, up to 24 month, panel, shows us longer term data than the single week diary does (or did in the top 50 markets).

So we have a grasp on listener behavior. We can't change those who prefer paid services that have limited or no commercials, so our job is to find broad consensus formats for a one-to-many service.

 

[davideduardo]

I wouldn't debate that, in radio. I believe the audience is out there, but are conditioned to find it elsewhere. My take is that two decades of little new and relying on the same seven to eight years of songs, under the guise of "new" is partly to blame.

Those are the only songs that have larger consensus group appeal; as mentioned previously, the big problem is that Alt has fragmented and there are only a few true consensus songs.

 

[Least]

Horrible bands = Bands you don't like? If so, shouldn't you be grateful they didn't pan out?

Again, you're ignoring the evidence showing that young, white, male America -- rock's foundation demo -- has been moving away from "dad's music" for the past 20 years. Rock is no longer the dominant angry music of teenage frustration and rebellion.

No. Horrible bands equate the bands the mostly burnt out and aren't included in best of play rotations. Many of the bands prominent in the early 2000s were either established in the early 90s or burnt out. Nickelback, Puddle of Mudd, Theory of a Deadman, Saliva, Limp Bizkit, and so on.

Some will argue Nickelback.

Also, you and I are saying the same thing. We have stations claiming to be active rock relying on dad's music. Where did my long diatribe of posts not agree with the change in dynamic.

 

[TheBigA]

I wouldn't debate that, in radio. I believe the audience is out there, but are conditioned to find it elsewhere. My take is that two decades of little new and relying on the same seven to eight years of songs, under the guise of "new" is partly to blame.

What do you base that on? Back in the old days, there were record sales. Not any more. Concert attendance? Not any more. Streams? I see amateur videos getting more views than major label acts. That doesn't mean we should play them on the radio. There is no reliable metric for new music other than personal taste. And that's not a reliable metric.

 

[Least]

The issue with outliers is that they are, individually, each different. There is no trend. Outliers are like meteorites... random, unpredictable and potentially destructive. Outliers will never be satisfiable because they don't much like the core music that everyone else in the test loves.

If there is a trend growing, it has to grasp the majority, even if a portion of them, to become significant. What you see in music testing with potentially trending music styles or variants, is that some of your core will be early adopters and, if they all score that music well, you have an indication of something that may be either adopted or watched carefully.

No, radio is in the advertising industry (except for non-commercial stations, which are not the subject here). Listeners are the product we deliver to advertisers. To attract advertisers, we have to deliver lots of listeners. That means doing something on the air that many will like.

If a station finds that its listener base is declining, then it finds ways to either rebuild or to find a new audience.

Your suggestion that the record industry is paying for the airplay of library cuts is absurd. And it's offensive to all of us who have ethically worked to build a good programming product that attracts listeners. The fact is that rock is declining and has been for three decades. If you look at the 2000 and 2010 Edison studies on music trends over the prior 10 years, you see that clearly. America is becoming a rhythm nation, not a rock nation.

Add to that the fragmentation in Alt and it becomes hard to find a core audience in that sector.

Conclusion: you are an outlier.

As to "loyalty" that is a term that radio in general does not use. We use our own language of P1, P2, P3 and so on meaning "Preference Levels". A P1 is the station a listener uses more than any other, and so on. But for a light radio user, that may mean 3 hours a week, and for a heavy user it may mean 40 hours. So we know that 80 to 90% of our listening comes from about 40 to 50% of the listeners.

Our focus is on heavier users because we find that you can not make light users into heavy ones as the amount of listening is often determined by things like not being able to listen at work.

And this week's P1 may be next week's P2 or P3. Most listeners, particularly heavy ones, have fluctuating usage of stations and the PPM, with an ongoing, up to 24 month, panel, shows us longer term data than the single week diary does (or did in the top 50 markets).

So we have a grasp on listener behavior. We can't change those who prefer paid services that have limited or no commercials, so our job is to find broad consensus formats for a one-to-many service.

I'm well aware that I'm an outlier. We've had our disagreements, but I'm not saying that radio should be programmed for outliers. I'm saying to not just cast them aside. Enough outliers with a common interest add up over time, and they're not outliers anymore. If you toss them out, you could end up not seeing trend.

With your industry, the end result is still the same, you (the industry) need us, not the other way around. I see it like this. Radio closes shop, and all frequencies go dark. The listeners can get what they want through other mediums. But, if radio is going on and suddenly all the listeners refuse to listen, then you (the industry) can't deliver anything.

With the term loyalty, I was going off the word used; so I won't haggle on that, seeing that you explained the industry's professional terminology. In the end, I far from take issue with the need to sell to advertising. My main point is that this format is programmed in a way the naturally diminishes returns over time. If someone was looking to appeal to this particular audience, eventually they need to increase the play of new music to attract younger listeners.

At the end of the day, we all understand it's about profit; but as a listener of this particular genre of music, I see my fore mentioned observations as being a detrement to the rock formats outside the 70s to 80s classic rock. We have two types of formats claiming the same music (active and "next generation classic"). It results in younger potential listeners to not be interested, while older audiences will see no value in switching to the "next generation classic rock" station as the music is mixed with new music on their current stations of preference.

 

[Least]

What do you base that on? Back in the old days, there were record sales. Not any more. Concert attendance? Not any more. Streams? I see amateur videos getting more views than major label acts. That doesn't mean we should play them on the radio. There is no reliable metric for new music other than personal taste. And that's not a reliable metric.

You're going off a pandemic with concert attendance. I think that's an unfair metric in this discussion. If it had been a 10 year pandemic, I would agree. But there were concerts going until March of last year.

As for record sales, there are still streaming numbers and downloads from iTunes (etc) that can be calculated.

And why not play non-major label acts? If it gains listeners that can be sold to advertisers, right? That's the buisness, right? Instead we stick with tried, tested, and true. The ramifications of that is multiple stations playing the same songs. You might not be in the music distribution buisness. But there are only so many listeners of the same format to go around. Having stations branded as different formats of rock, yet playing the same songs doesn't help. That's the point.

 

[Least]

Those are the only songs that have larger consensus group appeal; as mentioned previously, the big problem is that Alt has fragmented and there are only a few true consensus songs.

I'm not debating this. As I said, before someone would have taken a chance. Of course that's the old mom and pop radio owner days, and not the days of the big corporations. If not, these formats will fade away.

 

[TheBigA]

You're going off a pandemic with concert attendance. I think that's an unfair metric in this discussion.

I understand that, but even pre-pandemic numbers were pretty small. We're basically talking club acts, not stadium acts.

And why not play non-major label acts? If it gains listeners that can be sold to advertisers, right?

Sure, but if they can't get a big label deal, what makes you think they'll attract enough listeners to satisfy advertisers?

Indie music is a good non-commercial format. College radio does a lot of that. It's not a commercial format.

Having stations branded as different formats of rock, yet playing the same songs doesn't help. That's the point.

They're not ALL the same songs. There are different combinations and different percentages of eras. Then you add formatics such as branding and station talent. A radio station is more than just music.

 

[CTListener]

No. Horrible bands equate the bands the mostly burnt out and aren't included in best of play rotations. Many of the bands prominent in the early 2000s were either established in the early 90s or burnt out. Nickelback, Puddle of Mudd, Theory of a Deadman, Saliva, Limp Bizkit, and so on.

Oh, OK. I was thinking of Creed, the Killers, White Stripes -- bands I was hearing a lot of on XM when I subscribed in 2003. I'd argue that "burnt out" is just as subjective as "horrible" when it comes to bands from that era, unless you have research to back up the assertion. But seeing as how you don't trust industry research anyway ...

And by "dad's music," I was referring to rock as a genre, not specifically '90s rock. A lot of boomers discovered country music in the late '80s when the Seattle sound started to dominate rock, but rock was still a vital mainstream force back then. By the end of the '90s, that was changing drastically as grunge faded and hip-hop took over. Now you have people in their 30s and even 40s who NEVER liked rock, whose idea of "good music" from back in the day is Tupac. Their kids aren't being raised on rock. In fact, for those kids, rock is "grand-dad's music"!

 

[CTListener]

Sure, but if they can't get a big label deal, what makes you think they'll attract enough listeners to satisfy advertisers?

Indie music is a good non-commercial format. College radio does a lot of that. It's not a commercial format.

A lot of hit singles in the '50s and '60s came out on small labels, so it's not as if radio never attracted advertisers with indie-label music. But even then, the artists with significant potential quickly got signed to big labels. The others, by and large, remained one-hit wonders or regional acts.

 

[TheBigA]

A lot of hit singles in the '50s and '60s came out on small labels, so it's not as if radio never attracted advertisers with indie-label music.

That was a very different time. Even then it took a lot of money and visibility to make a hit. Right now, we don't see that kind of investment in certain genres of music that we see in others. That's coming from the music industry, not radio. That sends a message that perhaps this music isn't a priority.

 

[Least]

Oh, OK. I was thinking of Creed, the Killers, White Stripes -- bands I was hearing a lot of on XM when I subscribed in 2003. I'd argue that "burnt out" is just as subjective as "horrible" when it comes to bands from that era, unless you have research to back up the assertion. But seeing as how you don't trust industry research anyway ...

And by "dad's music," I was referring to rock as a genre, not specifically '90s rock. A lot of boomers discovered country music in the late '80s when the Seattle sound started to dominate rock, but rock was still a vital mainstream force back then. By the end of the '90s, that was changing drastically as grunge faded and hip-hop took over. Now you have people in their 30s and even 40s who NEVER liked rock, whose idea of "good music" from back in the day is Tupac. Their kids aren't being raised on rock. In fact, for those kids, rock is "grand-dad's music"!

First, let me pull the blade out of my chest and give it back to you for your next swing (joking). Again, you all speak of radio as a whole. This thread is about the low ratings of WBOS. So, I add my observation of rock music on the radio. Much of what is played today is either one of the few modern bands that make it through or 90s Era. Early 2000s is not as heavy in rotations on terrestrial. Godsmack, Disturbed, and Shinedown are the top three that come to mind. All three are still active. Much of what was considered big then, which originated then aren't played as prevalent.

To the rest of your statement, you make an assumption that I'm saying that rock dominates. I'm saying that playing new music is crucial to any genre. R&B plays new. Country plays new. Top 40 is nothing but new. Rock stations rely on 90s songs. Full circle to WBOS, calling it "the next generation of classic rock" although true, doesn't bring in listeners, because modern rock stations aren't playing new. They're playing mostly the same songs on WBOS. When classic rock began, it was because stations moved away from the prominent 70s songs, making a classic rock station unique. 90s songs aren't unique on classic rock, because of all I've been saying.

I'm not claiming that this generation leans towards rhythmic. But, rock stations haven't been fresh in decades, which partially plays into taste. As you said, "that's the music my father listens to," but not just the genre, it's most of the same songs on stations that claim to be playing modern songs.

 

[Least]

I understand that, but even pre-pandemic numbers were pretty small. We're basically talking club acts, not stadium acts.



Sure, but if they can't get a big label deal, what makes you think they'll attract enough listeners to satisfy advertisers?

Indie music is a good non-commercial format. College radio does a lot of that. It's not a commercial format.



They're not ALL the same songs. There are different combinations and different percentages of eras. Then you add formatics such as branding and station talent. A radio station is more than just music.

Most are the same, at least in this market. I know out west takes more chances with new. This market is classic rock focused, and until WAAF was sold, had a station claiming to be new. Even the "WAAF" that exists today relies a lot on the 90s, while claiming to be the only station in Boston with new rock.

 

[TheBigA]

Most are the same, at least in this market. I know out west takes more chances with new.

Playing new music on the radio won't make people like it. Adding more unfamiliar music by no-name bands won't make more people listen to WBOS.

Yes, WKLB is playing lots of new music. Most of it is from the last ten years. Compare the amount of work country artists do to new rock bands.

But, rock stations haven't been fresh in decades, which partially plays into taste.

That's because the music hasn't been fresh in decades. When you say the radio isn't fresh, you're really talking about the music.

The musicians need to give people a reason why they should listen. Just playing it on the radio isn't enough.

 

[CTListener]

Playing new music on the radio won't make people like it. Adding more unfamiliar music by no-name bands won't make more people listen to WBOS.

Yes, WKLB is playing lots of new music. Most of it is from the last ten years. Compare the amount of work country artists do to new rock bands.

I was just in the car listening to WWYZ. At one point, they went from a current, "Almost Maybes," to what they billed as a "throwback." I was expecting maybe George Strait or Brooks & Dunn or even Reba, '80s or '90s country. Nope, it was Montgomery Gentry's "Gone," from 2004! 17 years old and still right in keeping with the sound of the station today, although the country pendulum is swinging slightly back toward melodic and sensitive from loud and raunchy. And as you say, nothing else played that hour was nearly that old -- all but a couple were either current or recent recurrent, and most were by artists who've been putting out hits for at least a half-dozen years. That's what I call a healthy format with a healthy music industry feeding it.

 

[Least]

Playing new music on the radio won't make people like it. Adding more unfamiliar music by no-name bands won't make more people listen to WBOS.

Yes, WKLB is playing lots of new music. Most of it is from the last ten years. Compare the amount of work country artists do to new rock bands.



That's because the music hasn't been fresh in decades. When you say the radio isn't fresh, you're really talking about the music.

The musicians need to give people a reason why they should listen. Just playing it on the radio isn't enough.

I never said that WBOS needs to play new music. Go back and read what I said. My statements were that stations that claim to play new rock play much of what WBOS plays, which results with two things:

1. Turns new listeners away from the stations that claim to be "new rock"
2. Gives nothing unique to WBOS in its branding.

Therefore, by having the stations that play "new rock" playing more of it, gives a distinction to WBOS and other classic rock stations playing 90s songs.

As for country music, that's the record company pushing it more. We agree with that. New rock acts are out there, satellite has a channel dedicated to it. But there are multiple things at play, which I stated this morning.

You guys are either not fully reading what I'm writing, or not fully interpreting it as I'm intending. Either way, this thread is written as a vacuum regarding this kind of music and specific station. I'm adding my theories regarding this particular genre and format/station. I have you missing the mark on my statements and CT Listener bringing up valid points, but discussing lemons when I'm discussing limes. Same arena, just two slightly different sections.

I'm not arguing against numbers or the industry's tests, as CT Listener stated earlier I'm also not arguing about taste. We have a what (quantitative info). I have theories as to why (qualitative info). They are just that, theories. My theories are based on basic sociology. If we have a new generation of people, they will distinct themselves from the past. With rock stations, we all agree that they have played 90s songs for the last 20 years, and many of us have cited testing saying that's what gets the strongest audience for advertising. My theory is that after 20 years of not that much new, of course any chance of having a large sub-population of the overall population being interested is small. Yes, they are going rhythmic. That's 100% true. But there are reasons for that, and part of it is that new rock hasn't been pushed. As I said before, there are many reasons, but as this board focuses on radio, I place my emphasis on where I think radio is at play.

If we were discussing radio as a whole, the all points made in this discussion are relevant. But this thread is about this station.

 

[CTListener]

The record companies may be pushing it more, but country fans -- younger ones, anyway -- are obviously loving what they're hearing. Concerts are starting up again and I'm seeing billboards for Darius Rucker on I-91 and hearing ads for Blake Shelton not only on WWYZ but during today's Yankees broadcast on all-sports WUCS. I'm not encountering any current rock advertising at all.

SiriusXM's methodology for calculating listenership to individual channels is largely unknown, but I doubt that its new rock channel (Sirius XMU) is reaching many ears.

 

[davideduardo]

What do you base that on? Back in the old days, there were record sales. Not any more. Concert attendance? Not any more. Streams? I see amateur videos getting more views than major label acts. That doesn't mean we should play them on the radio. There is no reliable metric for new music other than personal taste. And that's not a reliable metric.

And many of the record industry metrics, whether they be physical or download or stream, do not include information on who was buying or streaming the product. So a "huge" song might be a total negative among a specific station's listeners.

That was the reason why Gavin created his tip sheet back in the later 50's: to allow one format to track the play and response for songs within that format's listeners.

It's why, back in the early 70's I started watching store sales by sending a station rep into a few stores on peak sales days to see who was buying the songs. We did not care how much a song sold; we cared whether our own listeners were buying it.

The 70's spawned many more "tip sheets"* that were specific to certain formats; the use of trades like Billboard and Cash Box were not really used for charts (if stations got them at all) but, instead, for industry and artist news, concert information and other related information. By the end of the 70's we had Radio & Records, later shortened to R&R, which was radio based with industry news for both radio and music.

Today, the source of airplay info is the combination of current "callout" (which is mostly online now) for a short list of songs, and AMT's for library. That tells us what our own format (us and any direct competitor) listeners like, dislike, are tired or burnt out on, are unfamiliar with, etc.

And dissection of test results, such as cluster/factor analysis, shows us how subsets of our own listeners react to songs. We can thus find the songs that have cross specrum commonality, which are the only ones one-to-many media can play.

 

[Least]

The record companies may be pushing it more, but country fans -- younger ones, anyway -- are obviously loving what they're hearing. Concerts are starting up again and I'm seeing billboards for Darius Rucker on I-91 and hearing ads for Blake Shelton not only on WWYZ but during today's Yankees broadcast on all-sports WUCS. I'm not encountering any current rock advertising at all.

SiriusXM's methodology for calculating listenership to individual channels is largely unknown, but I doubt that its new rock channel (Sirius XMU) is reaching many ears.

Not arguing the fans at all. They are locked in as of now. It's not my preference, as I am more rock, blues, jazz, R&B, and Soul music, but to denounce it's prominence would be just dumb on my behalf.

Fair enough about SiriusXMU. But I wasn't even going to that, which is it's indie music channel. I was actually referring to Octane, which is it's equivalent to new commercial hard rock.