WCBS-FM has Problems with their Music Format Playlist

[davideduardo]

For a station to be truly great, it has to have some kind of heart beyond research.-

Research is a tool. It can be used by a good programmer to make a station even better, or misused by a bad programmer. Like any information, the proof is in the way it is interpreted.

There has never been an unresearched station I could not beat when I have been programming, because I had the advantage of knowing what the listener thought.

Unless you have that, you might get ratings and earn a buck, but you'll be McRadio.

In some cases, all research with no "soul " has worked where stations were generally too chatty and personality driven... and minimalism and perfect music was a contrast and at the same time attractive.

Years ago, you'd see radio station's call letters scrawled onto bathroom walls, on people's cars, and on people's t-shirts.

Clarification: that should read "some radio staton's calls (or names)" and was not generalized. For nearly two decades, beautiful music was perhaps the most profitable format on radio. I never saw people writing their calls on walls. Or KMPC. Or WOR. Or WGN.... you get the picture.

Would anyone even think of doing that today? Maybe only as an ironic joke.

It's a different world... the era of bumper stickers and stuff in general is long gone.

Research = Vanilla.

To the contrary. As I said, in the hands of a competent PD, it is a clear roadmap to success because it reveals what listeners like and dislike. Not researching is arrogant.

How many stations that were #1 or tops in their target have you programmed?

 

[8638]

If you come up with songs that virtually NO radio stations in America play...every wonder why that is?
Ever think you might be the ONLY person on your block that wants to hear them?

Yeah, but if we paraphrase that:

"If you're advocating politics that virtually NO successful commercial talk radio in America reflects...every wonder why that is?
Ever think you might be the ONLY person on your block that supports such politics?"

Uh...

That too would be bad for ratings.
See any Communist talk shows at #1 ??

No, I believe Air America is nowhere near #1.

 

[8638]

I'll take this topic a step further. I think it has very little to do with testing. At my job I see sheeple whistling and singing the most mindless oldies and classic chicken rock all day.

If the powers-that-be supply the sheeple with only a handful of tunes that are easy to remember and memorize, they can keep their minds occupied with frivilous material while they continue to exploit them for their money and control the gov't, press, media, and universities.

It's a disgrace.

Was your great great grandfather Marx or Engel? Maybe just Eugene Debs.

I was about to type a paraphrased version of that! Jeez! Be thankful you live somewhere where you can express that opinion. As I understand from the TOH news earlier, the Chinese are preparing to 'crack down' on certain Tibetans who aren't toeing the Commie line. God Bless America!

 

[davideduardo]

I was about to type a paraphrased version of that! Jeez! Be thankful you live somewhere where you can express that opinion.

I actually lived and owned stations where I could not say such things, as Marx and Engel were among the reading material my shop steward regularly brought with him. In addition, when I joined with a newspaper to oppose a leftist military government as the voice of the oppostion, my print counter part "disappeared" and I was exiled at gunpoint.

When I speak of Marx and his camp followers, I am deadly serious. The poster who called listeners to various radio formats "sheeple" is part of a nauseating and annoying fringe who are discontents totally lacking in knowledge of the industry, who feel that their taste is superior to that of the masses. Reminds me of the line about all animals being equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

 

[scooty430]

Do your surveys you take ever ask people whether they think radio in general sucks?

Because, frankly, that is the concensus out there.

Don't you radio people get it? Radio got boring, and people stopped listening.

 

[neo11]

The problem is that I feel that this sort of research...audience tests and the like...really only give the station half the story. You're testing the station's current listeners...its P1s and P2s, primarily. However, you're not testing those who are no longer listening to the radio. You're basically preaching to the choir...the people left over that are listening anyway. Sure, you don't want to lose them either, and that's where the research does come in handy, however, it only gives you that part of the story and doesn't seem to account for those who were listening once, but aren't any longer.

 

[scooty430]

Years ago, you'd see radio station's call letters scrawled onto bathroom walls, on people's cars, and on people's t-shirts.

Clarification: that should read "some radio staton's calls (or names)" and was not generalized. For nearly two decades, beautiful music was perhaps the most profitable format on radio. I never saw people writing their calls on walls. Or KMPC. Or WOR. Or WGN.... you get the picture.

OK, that made me laugh. Good point. But here's what I meant. People, specifically young people, used to get passionate, REALLY passionate about Top 40 and Rock stations. In my life, that was WBCN, WRKO, WCOZ, WNEW, WPLJ, KMET, KROQ. And I can tell people felt that way about KHJ. Those were the stations that had the bumper stickers, bathroom graffiti, and proudly worn t-shirts. (And by the way, out here in LA people still have bumper stickers for presidential candidates, rock bands, and such....but not radio stations.)

However even the easy listening and classical stations had some of that passion. My 80 year old barber was REALLY into his station, believe me. And gosh, WCRB in Boston was huge. Yes, 40 year old dads didn't scrawl WCRB Rules! on bathroom stalls, but the passion was the same, if only expressed differently. (And they had a ton of (very funny) WCRB bumper stickers in Boston, by the way.)

[/quote]

How many stations that were #1 or tops in their target have you programmed?

None, but I've listened to a few.

Remember, just because McDonalds is the #1 restaruant in America, does not mean they are the best restuaurant in America. You're thinking only of the bottom line. That's fine, but I'm looking at radio as something more.

 

[davideduardo]

Do your surveys you take ever ask people whether they think radio in general sucks?

There are all kinds of research products radio uses. A music test, which is what we are discussing here, is intended to find heavier users of a kind of music and discover what songs they like and what ones they do not like.

There are perceptual research products to determine formats, attitudes towards shows (mostly morning or talk shows), stations overall, etc. Each is done for a specific purpose.

When we see that 95% of Americans 12+ use radio, there is a pretty big base for study without having to find out who is not listening. Researchers generally laugh at the projects that are based on finding people who are listening less. The reason, in 95% of the cases turns out to be things like the lister's car radio is broken, they were transferred to an office where they can not listen, they started commuting via bus when gas got so expensive, etc., down to "I was in the hospital on life support for over a month" and "I was in Iraq for a tour" and similar real examples.

Because, frankly, that is the concensus out there.

Actually, it is not. Forever (since Arbitron began in 65) there has been about 5% that did not listen in any given week, and about 7% (give or take) that listened very little. It has to do with things totally unrelated to the existing stations, and more to do with lifestyle, etc.

Don't you radio people get it? Radio got boring, and people stopped listening.

While there have always been some who believe this, what is affecting radio today is the ability to personalize music listening via an iPod, and the wide range of other things to do in leisure time. I personally think the 120 million video gaming consoles and devices out there take more from radio than an iPod does in younger demos... and that is backed by actual 18-24 reasearch in fact.

Your problem is that you think you know what is wrong with radio, without knowing what is right and what makes a good station (which is different for every demo and format and ethnicity). Most of us are way beyond your very simplistic approach of blaming playlist size.

 

[davideduardo]

The problem is that I feel that this sort of research...audience tests and the like...really only give the station half the story. You're testing the station's current listeners...its P1s and P2s, primarily. However, you're not testing those who are no longer listening to the radio.

That is true for a music test. In that case, we want to know only what existing listeners to our station or our format want, not what people who may have any of a hundred irrelevant reasons for not listening care for.

If we want to know about "lost listeners" to our station or format, we do perceptual research, not a music test.

You're basically preaching to the choir...the people left over that are listening anyway. Sure, you don't want to lose them either, and that's where the research does come in handy, however, it only gives you that part of the story and doesn't seem to account for those who were listening once, but aren't any longer.

That is very few people in most cases, and the reasons are the availability of so many other entertainment options. Were radio to be able to do non-commercial years and play only each person's favorite songs, it might be useful to try to compete with iPods. But the business model requires accepting that we are advertising driven. 95% of American listen weekly in PPM markets, so there are plenty of people to please...

 

[scooty430]

Do your surveys you take ever ask people whether they think radio in general sucks?

There are all kinds of research products radio uses. A music test, which is what we are discussing here, is intended to find heavier users of a kind of music and discover what songs they like and what ones they do not like.

There are perceptual research products to determine formats, attitudes towards shows (mostly morning or talk shows), stations overall, etc. Each is done for a specific purpose.

When we see that 95% of Americans 12+ use radio, there is a pretty big base for study without having to find out who is not listening. Researchers generally laugh at the projects that are based on finding people who are listening less. The reason, in 95% of the cases turns out to be things like the lister's car radio is broken, they were transferred to an office where they can not listen, they started commuting via bus when gas got so expensive, etc., down to "I was in the hospital on life support for over a month" and "I was in Iraq for a tour" and similar real examples.

Because, frankly, that is the concensus out there.

Actually, it is not. Forever (since Arbitron began in 65) there has been about 5% that did not listen in any given week, and about 7% (give or take) that listened very little. It has to do with things totally unrelated to the existing stations, and more to do with lifestyle, etc.

Don't you radio people get it? Radio got boring, and people stopped listening.

While there have always been some who believe this, what is affecting radio today is the ability to personalize music listening via an iPod, and the wide range of other things to do in leisure time. I personally think the 120 million video gaming consoles and devices out there take more from radio than an iPod does in younger demos... and that is backed by actual 18-24 reasearch in fact.

Your problem is that you think you know what is wrong with radio, without knowing what is right and what makes a good station (which is different for every demo and format and ethnicity). Most of us are way beyond your very simplistic approach of blaming playlist size.

I think your opinions are colored by your job, and you may be in a bit of denial. I can't IMAGINE that 95 percent of the public is listening to the radio, and that only 7 percent listen very little. How is that possible, given the much lower ratings and shares? (Not even mentioning what happens when the PPM comes in.)

Maybe take a clue from other media: At least the newspaper people are admitting their market share is declining rapidly. I guess because there the sales figures are right there: lower circulation. Radio seems to be putting on the blinders and pretending everything's fine. Perhaps waking up and sharpening the product (rather than watering and dumbing it down) will result in more people becoming excited.

I do agree, though, that the huge range of entertainment options (especially video games for younger people) has a huge impact on radio.

 

[davideduardo]

I think your opinions are colored by your job, and you may be in a bit of denial. I can't IMAGINE that 95 percent of the public is listening to the radio, and that only 7 percent listen very little. How is that possible, given the much lower ratings and shares?

Jeeze. Would you please learn the meaning of the terms of the trade before you take on the radio industry.

"Share" does not change no matter how many or few people are listening to radio. Share is an expression of the amount of audience garnered by a station or group of staitons. There will always be 100 share points, whether everyone or nearly nobody listen to radio.

If individual stations have lower shares, some of their audience has moved to other stations because there are always 100 shares. If a market has more stations than it had 20 years ago, there will be lower shares per station, but still 100 points are available, but they are spread between more stations.

(Not even mentioning what happens when the PPM comes in.)

There are still 100 shares in PPM. Total ratings decline, as PPM simply shows that rounded recall method diary reporting exaggerated listening times... in other words, it shows what has always been going on with better precision. But there are still only 100 shares.

Perhaps waking up and sharpening the product (rather than watering and dumbing it down) will result in more people becoming excited.

The erosion of PUR has been going on for over 20 years, since the peak years of 1987 and 1988. Some is due to better measurement, and some to all the alternative leisure activities. Still, per the PPM markets, 95% of Americans use radio each week.

I do agree, though, that the huge range of entertainment options (especially video games for younger people) has a huge impact on radio.

Why don't you go to the Arbitron web site and snag the "Purple Book" and learn how ratings are done and what the terms mean... if you are really interested in anything beyond trolling with misinformation and misinterpretation.

 

[adma]

I think your opinions are colored by your job, and you may be in a bit of denial. I can't IMAGINE that 95 percent of the public is listening to the radio, and that only 7 percent listen very little. How is that possible, given the much lower ratings and shares? (Not even mentioning what happens when the PPM comes in.)

"Listening" doesn't necessarily mean "voluntary". Indeed, PPM's magic is in capturing casual/involuntary radio exposure.

There may be less and less voluntary listening, but if you're out and about day after day, it's hard to avoid radio altogether--even if it's but background noise to someone's McJob...

 

[BACKnUSSR]

Do your surveys you take ever ask people whether they think radio in general sucks?

Because, frankly, that is the concensus out there.

Don't you radio people get it? Radio got boring, and people stopped listening.

Hahaha.
In fact it is so boring.....we've decided to write about it on radio chat room boards just to demostrate how much we don't care about it.

 

[scooty430]

Spare me the lecture, bud. I get what shares are, just typing fast.

In fact, one of the reasons shares are emphasized these days is because actual ratings of all potential listeners (or viewers) are so small.

Why are you so defensive, anyway? Are you ever wrong? I'm just raising some points here about how I feel about radio, and I know that I'm not alone.

Anyhow, discussion over. I wave the white flag. Radio is more exciting, richer, more innovative, and more popular than ever. You're right. Keep researching and get all those stations #1. Keep playing the same 200 songs, because that's all we want. Forever. I'm sure the people stuck in cubicles, grocery stores, and dentist offices nationwide will be listening intently, and will thank you for the work you do.

 

[davideduardo]

Spare me the lecture, bud. I get what shares are, just typing fast.

Actually, you do not understand as you made the same "share" analysis several times in the same post.

In fact, one of the reasons shares are emphasized these days is because actual ratings of all potential listeners (or viewers) are so small.

Shares have always been the basis for media reporting and programming decisions, because we program to available audience. For example, the available audience 7-Midnight has long been (since the death of network radio after the TV freeze was lifted) about one third of drive time levels. But to show performance relative to the daypart's available audience, we look at shares. I just perused some 1957 Broadcasting Magazines and all the radio station ads spoke of share, not rating.

The rating erosion has been relatively small over a very long period of time. PURs are of about 15% since 1985, before the odd 1987-1988 peak, or something like 0.6 or so per year. Compared to 2000, the value in persons of a share has barely changed.

Why are you so defensive, anyway?

I am not defensive. I am just having a kick correcting your highly mistaken assumptions about playlists (You noticed how USSR correccted you on the CBS-FM vs krth playlists, which you mistakenly thought were different sizes than the truth bears out) and radio listening.

Seldom is someone so far removed from the facts such a prolific poster. For the sake of those many readers who do not post, somebody has to correct your tripe.

Are you ever wrong?

Yeah, but we learn by our mistakes in radio. My biggest error, some time back, was trying to compete with a larger playlist thinking I would own the variety image. I learnd fast that this was not so. I'm hoping that you will realize that you are similarly wrong and learn that, for example, the perception of variety increases as the playlist is tightened to the optimum size for a format.

I'm just raising some points here about how I feel about radio, and I know that I'm not alone.

There are relatively few like you who are interested enough to go on a radio message board. Most listeners, as they always have, use radio as a free "appliance" and spend very little time intellectualizing the experience.

The usage of radio, despite all the new options, is amazingly high. Of course, radio is free, easy to use, and the better stations offer things an iPod can't, such as fun morning shows, sports, talk, local weather and such, and so on. There is still plenty of life in radio, although it is certainly not a growth business in most sectors (fortunately, I am with a group and sector that grows... our Q4 of '07 was up 13% in billing).

Anyhow, discussion over. I wave the white flag. Radio is more exciting, richer, more innovative, and more popular than ever. You're right. Keep researching and get all those stations #1. Keep playing the same 200 songs, because that's all we want. Forever. I'm sure the people stuck in cubicles, grocery stores, and dentist offices nationwide will be listening intently, and will thank you for the work you do.

Actually, a format I created in 2000 is based on about 1000 regular rotation songs, because that is how many test extremely positive... the format, on a class A duo in LA, is consistently top 10 in 25-54 and beats KRTH in that demo... and the format is on a dozen stations and even has personalities on in overnights. On the other hand, our #1 LA station has far fewer songs, but strong live personalites 24/7 and lots of listener concerts, promotions, etc. And our #2 station has personality talk for 10 hours a day, and a very short playlist of hits. Each is designed for a different listener group, with playlists, talent, promotions, contests and such tailored to it. That is why we have 3 stations in the top 10 in 25-54 in the largest revenue market in the world. And that's the proof of the formula... which is also proven by top 10 music stations like KLAX, KBUE, KROQ, KOST and KIIS.

 

[KFodor]

Do your surveys you take ever ask people whether they think radio in general sucks?

Because, frankly, that is the concensus out there.

Don't you radio people get it? Radio got boring, and people stopped listening.

Hahaha.
In fact it is so boring.....we've decided to write about it on radio chat room boards just to demostrate how much we don't care about it.

To answer Scooty here:

Yes...those questions are asked in what are called "perceptual" studies. Radio does those, too. That's how we know that while there is criticism of the industry, (and things we need to do to address it) the "radio sucks" crowd is in the minority.

 

[adma]

To answer Scooty here:

Yes...those questions are asked in what are called "perceptual" studies. Radio does those, too. That's how we know that while there is criticism of the industry, (and things we need to do to address it) the "radio sucks" crowd is in the minority.

Well, the *active* "radio sucks" crowd, anyway. As opposed to the merely apathetic. And of course, as with so many radio-commissioned studies, there's the matter of the picture being skewed by whomever might be motivated to participate in such a study...

 

[davideduardo]

Well, the *active* "radio sucks" crowd, anyway. As opposed to the merely apathetic. And of course, as with so many radio-commissioned studies, there's the matter of the picture being skewed by whomever might be motivated to participate in such a study...

Participants in studies are recruited by outside recruiters, whose only job is to provide respondants to P&G, Honda, S & C Johnson, Coke, Apple and all kinds of companies that want to know what consumers are thinking. And most of the studies are done by professional research companies that are nearly all specialized in radio research. These are not hastily assembled sessions with listeners recruited off the request line.

A typical music test costs around $35 thousand. A set of focus groups or one on one sessions will be in the $15 thousand range. A perceptual around $50 thousand or more.

 

[adma]

But they're still voluntary, and specially chosen, participants. So if they, and the programming they serve, are so "representative" of the masses out there, then why doesn't the Republican party get national mandates on a Russian "Dmitry Medvedev" scale? (Heck, in NYC, it's the *Democrats* who receive those kinds of mandates.)

All it proves that said companies are intelligent enough to know that in order to attain mass reach, they need to bottom-feed off the stupidest consumer-type specimens, too...

 

[BACKnUSSR]

But they're still voluntary, and specially chosen, participants. So if they, and the programming they serve, are so "representative" of the masses out there, then why doesn't the Republican party get national mandates on a Russian "Dmitry Medvedev" scale? (Heck, in NYC, it's the *Democrats* who receive those kinds of mandates.)

All it proves that said companies are intelligent enough to know that in order to attain mass reach, they need to bottom-feed off the stupidest consumer-type specimens, too...

What are you talking about? What mandates? Seriously????