Westwood One adds new 24/7 Good Time Oldies format to replace Scott Shannon's TOC

[Avid Listener]

A search on "hollow state" +tube will yield over 2 million google hits, and only a couple are for the brand or company you refer to which "appropriated" the generic term used universally today. There is even a published Hollow State Newsletter.

But adding "+tube" to the search would require one to know in advance that hollow state is a reference to valve technology. As a guitar player, I am very familiar with the virtues of tube-based amps. I have never seen the term "hollow state" used in any guitar amplifier company's literature, except for the "Hollow State" brand. I've never seen in mentioned in any music trade journal or publication or amplifier review.

 

[davideduardo]

But adding "+tube" to the search would require one to know in advance that hollow state is a reference to valve technology. As a guitar player, I am very familiar with the virtues of tube-based amps. I have never seen the term "hollow state" used in any guitar amplifier company's literature, except for the "Hollow State" brand. I've never seen in mentioned in any music trade journal or publication or amplifier review.

You live a sheltered, unreal life.

"Hollow state" is used in professional audio, broadcast and high-end consumer electronics pages, blogs and magazines.

From a definition added to The Urban Dictionary in 2005:
hollow state
Electronics using vacuum tube technology, as opposed to solid state (transistorised) technology.
A hollow state stereo amplifier.
by AM Gangsta April 14, 2005

 

[Avid Listener]

I respect logical and rational political views, whether I agree with them or not. Conspiracy theories ranging from the denial of the moon walk to the "alternative" explanation of 9/11 to the birther theory are not what I would deem remotely logical or rational.

Lumping the significant evidence that Barack Obama was born in Kenya with such tin-foil hat rubbish as the denial of Armstrong and Aldrin walking on the moon or denying that aircraft struck the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 displays your inability to respect any opinion that you disagree with.

 

[TheBigA]

Take the politics someplace else.

 

[davideduardo]

Lumping the significant evidence that Barack Obama was born in Kenya with such tin-foil hat rubbish as the denial of Armstrong and Aldrin walking on the moon or denying that aircraft struck the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 displays your inability to respect any opinion that you disagree with.

Returning to radio, all this does is demonstrate that you find fault in nearly everything presented to you.

You think corporations are crashing all over because one or two have not kept up with markets.

You think P&G's research is flawed because they sold... at a significant profit... the pet food division. (The Wall Street Journal reports on the sale, at a $600 billion profit as, "Mars Inc. agreed to buy Iams and other pet-food brands from Procter & Gamble Co. for $2.9 billion, solidifying its position as the world's biggest pet-food company and effectively ridding P&G of a business that no longer fits with its goals."

You find essentially nothing you like on the radio, and believe the other 300 million or so Americans are similarly displeased.

You think nobody in radio knows what they are doing, but you know the answer. 100 thousand people are wrong, and you are right.

You think anyone who does not speak English as their preferred tongue is not an American.

You think someone who describes the multiple languages of Hawai'i is a racist for doing so.

You say ratings are not reliable, yet a big part of the $17 billion in annual radio sales is placed based on this data by companies that seem to know what they are doing.

This sort of list does not favorably position you, and makes all your opinions fall under what Spiro Agnew would have called a "Nattering nabob of negativity".

 

[Avid Listener]

Returning to radio, all this does is demonstrate that you find fault in nearly everything presented to you.

You think corporations are crashing all over because one or two have not kept up with markets.

You think P&G's research is flawed because they sold... at a significant profit... the pet food division. (The Wall Street Journal reports on the sale, at a $600 billion profit as, "Mars Inc. agreed to buy Iams and other pet-food brands from Procter & Gamble Co. for $2.9 billion, solidifying its position as the world's biggest pet-food company and effectively ridding P&G of a business that no longer fits with its goals."

You find essentially nothing you like on the radio, and believe the other 300 million or so Americans are similarly displeased.

You think nobody in radio knows what they are doing, but you know the answer. 100 thousand people are wrong, and you are right.

You think anyone who does not speak English as their preferred tongue is not an American.

You think someone who describes the multiple languages of Hawai'i is a racist for doing so.

You say ratings are not reliable, yet a big part of the $17 billion in annual radio sales is placed based on this data by companies that seem to know what they are doing.

This sort of list does not favorably position you, and makes all your opinions fall under what Spiro Agnew would have called a "Nattering nabob of negativity".

I find it interesting how you can so completely mis-state what I've said in other posts and turn things into straw men that you can then more easily dismiss. Foe example, you never mentioned the "multiple languages of Hawaii" until after I pointed out that your characterizing the Hawaiian language as a pidgin was racist. It was only after my response that you then claimed Hawaii had multiple languages. But that's not what you originally said that I replied to.

You mistakenly accuse me of saying that people who refuse to speak English are not American, when I said no such thing. I said that people who clung to a foreign language are "foreigners". That is something very different.

It sure is easy to be right about everything when anytime you disagree with something, you simply change it into something easier to refute.

Likewise, you overlook another simple truth. "Conventional wisdom" isn't automatically correct just because large numbers of people are too apathetic to question it.

 

[davideduardo]

I find it interesting how you can so completely mis-state what I've said in other posts and turn things into straw men that you can then more easily dismiss. Foe example, you never mentioned the "multiple languages of Hawaii" until after I pointed out that your characterizing the Hawaiian language as a pidgin was racist. It was only after my response that you then claimed Hawaii had multiple languages. But that's not what you originally said that I replied to.

I did not say Hawaiian was Pidgin. I said that there were essentially three languages in Hawaii, Hawaiian, Pidgin and English. While Pidgin is generally an amalgamation of slang and various "real" languages, the use of mixed Hawaiian, English and various Asian language terms in Hawaii fits the definition of Pidgin nicely and is hardly racist. As I said, you find fault in everything.

You mistakenly accuse me of saying that people who refuse to speak English are not American, when I said no such thing. I said that people who clung to a foreign language are "foreigners". That is something very different.

Sounds like a semantic differentiation to me.

And that is a form of nit-picking. But the end result of always finding fault is still there.

I love the "failed business" example where P&G made a $600 million profit!

 

[Avid Listener]

I did not say Hawaiian was Pidgin. I said that there were essentially three languages in Hawaii, Hawaiian, Pidgin and English. While Pidgin is generally an amalgamation of slang and various "real" languages, the use of mixed Hawaiian, English and various Asian language terms in Hawaii fits the definition of Pidgin nicely and is hardly racist. As I said, you find fault in everything.

Go back and read the ORIGINAL post of yours that I replied to. Your subsequent response indicated three languages, but the original post that you keep harping on my reply to only included two languages.

If you ever post something that makes sense or stands up to a "common sense" filter, I won't disagree with it.

 

[davideduardo]

Go back and read the ORIGINAL post of yours that I replied to. Your subsequent response indicated three languages, but the original post that you keep harping on my reply to only included two languages.

If you ever post something that makes sense or stands up to a "common sense" filter, I won't disagree with it.

I said they spoke Hawaiian, Pidgin and English. One, two, three. Uno dos y tres.

 

[oldies76]

Oh, and were you to travel out to the East End, you would know that WLNG is not an oldies station... it is a community station that fills with oldies in between the local features.

It is an oldies station...they fill with community forums between the music.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WLNG


http://radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/finder?call=wlng&sr=Y&s=C

 

[davideduardo]

It is an oldies station...they fill with community forums between the music.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WLNG


http://radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/finder?call=wlng&sr=Y&s=C

You personally knew Paul Sidney? I did. He was the first to say that the station was a community voice. They did lost dogs and swap shop and everything in between over the years. The music is a nice fill, but not the reason the station does so well commercially in a very tiny market (the 65 dbu covers only 75,000 persons).

Industry sources like BIA list it as News/Info/Oldies.

Your sources are wikipedia, where anything written needs independent verification, and radio-locator which uses software to calculate vastly exaggerated coverage maps (and whose format data is woefully out of date and often wrong).

 

[John Gallagher]

Is WLNG the station that Jimmy Fallon and Billy Joel mentioned on Fallon's show? Do you really think that's what Fallon really listens to?

 

[John Gallagher]

Suddenly, almost 24 hours of crickets in this thread? Anxious to hear more spirited discussion.

 

[oldies76]

Suddenly, almost 24 hours of crickets in this thread? Anxious to hear more spirited discussion.

Because maybe we're fed up of being told "other" things, every single time we post something meaningful. In other words, whatever we post, is wrong, is incorrect, is ignorance, is mistaken, and to another poster, we live in sheltered lives.

Even to the fact of a station that plays oldies (and lots of them).....is not an oldies station. Good Grief!!

They are always right, and we're wrong, everytime. That to me is not a debate, it's know-it-alls taking over the show.

Even Wikipedia and other radio websites.....are all wrong...etc..

Cricket.........Cricket.............

 

[davideduardo]

Because maybe we're fed up of being told "other" things, every single time we post something meaningful. In other words, whatever we post, is wrong, is incorrect, is ignorance, is mistaken...

True. And while you have been shown how every time a significant station does any of these things, it fails. And why only in unrated markets do suck stations survive, due only to being able to live in ignorance of the possibility of doing a better job for local accounts.

Even to the fact of a station that plays oldies (and lots of them).....is not an oldies station. Good Grief!!

This too has been explained. To remove a station from the stigma of being labeled "oldies" by buyers, the industry accepted a new term, "classic hits" for 70's and 90's gold stations. "Oldies" means, inside the industries or radio and advertising, a station that plays 60's songs and has geezer demos.

They are always right, and we're wrong, everytime.

Because you keep insisting on provenly wrong things, over and over. The only thing missing to have a full-bown Groundhog Day party is Bill Murray and the furry creature his self.

Even Wikipedia and other radio websites.....are all wrong...etc..

We know wikipedia is often... frequently... wrong because people like yourself can edit and write for it. Wikipedia is a good start on research, but not a generally accepted "proven beyond doubt" source.

And your other recent mention... Radio-locator... even puts at the bottom of the page "for entertainment purposes only" and the outdated format and other station information is widely known. Again, a good first step, but not highly reliable.

 

[semoochie]

True. And while you have been shown how every time a significant station does any of these things, it fails. And why only in unrated markets do suck stations survive, due only to being able to live in ignorance of the possibility of doing a better job for local accounts.



This too has been explained. To remove a station from the stigma of being labeled "oldies" by buyers, the industry accepted a new term, "classic hits" for 70's and 90's gold stations. "Oldies" means, inside the industries or radio and advertising, a station that plays 60's songs and has geezer demos.



Because you keep insisting on provenly wrong things, over and over. The only thing missing to have a full-bown Groundhog Day party is Bill Murray and the furry creature his self.



We know wikipedia is often... frequently... wrong because people like yourself can edit and write for it. Wikipedia is a good start on research, but not a generally accepted "proven beyond doubt" source.

And your other recent mention... Radio-locator... even puts at the bottom of the page "for entertainment purposes only" and the outdated format and other station information is widely known. Again, a good first step, but not highly reliable.

Radio-locator.com is the only place that I know, where you can find coverage maps for AM stations, without having to subscribe to a service. I was hoping that the FCC would do that by now but, no such luck. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I once saw a misquote of "ME"!

 

[Avid Listener]

Radio-locator.com is the only place that I know, where you can find coverage maps for AM stations, without having to subscribe to a service. I was hoping that the FCC would do that by now but, no such luck. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I once saw a misquote of "ME"!

There's an old saying with a lot of meaning, "Close enough for government work" or a similar, "close enough for rock and roll". There are times when "good enough" is good enough. An internet discussion forum is one such place. Pedantic know-it-alls who have to constantly belittle other posters and flaunt their "expertise" by nit-picking over ever petty detail are, in many ways, far more annoying than trolls. I mean, since when are the opinions batted back and forth in fora like this one so important that they need to be supported by "proven beyond doubt" sources? As limited as Wikipedia might be, it's still a lot more believable than, "Because I say so", as proof of anything.

As for Wikipedia, it can be a valuable bibliography. I would never recommend taking anything in Wikipedia seriously for supporting an important decision that has any sort of meaningful impact on the world at large. But, for discussions and conversations on an internet discussion forum, it's usually close enough. And, most of the important points listed on Wikipedia are footnoted. That's where its value as a bibliography comes in. Wikipedia can be a very useful search engine to find links to primary sources.

 

[davideduardo]

There's an old saying with a lot of meaning, "Close enough for government work" or a similar, "close enough for rock and roll". There are times when "good enough" is good enough. An internet discussion forum is one such place. Pedantic know-it-alls who have to constantly belittle other posters and flaunt their "expertise" by nit-picking over ever petty detail are, in many ways, far more annoying than trolls. I mean, since when are the opinions batted back and forth in fora like this one so important that they need to be supported by "proven beyond doubt" sources?

In the case of radio-locator.com we have "entertainment purpose" data used to justify points, such as market coverage. When the reality is that, for both AM and FM, the only useful contour on that site is about 20% inside the innermost red-colored contour, it is important to explain that the other coverage curves are meaningless. Yet many posters justify the potential of a station based on those outer contours. In other words, when people are using a screwdriver to cut wood, it should be perceived as helpful to point out that the tool is inappropriate or that it is being used for other than its intended purpose.

As limited as Wikipedia might be, it's still a lot more believable than, "Because I say so", as proof of anything.

I agree. I even send my $50 or $100 donation every time they put those donation banners on the pages. But it is only a starting point. Radio broadcasting is one of the areas where it is common to see grossly incorrect or deceptive content about stations, personalities and related issues. I've been told that similar unreliability exists on the articles related to ad agencies... so any industry where "puffery" is a standard and even desirable quality seems to get grossly inaccurate Wiki articles as a byproduct.

As for Wikipedia, it can be a valuable bibliography. I would never recommend taking anything in Wikipedia seriously for supporting an important decision that has any sort of meaningful impact on the world at large. But, for discussions and conversations on an internet discussion forum, it's usually close enough.

Nope. Here we disagree. Some radio related articles are close to factual, while others are "WTF moments" so some form of verification or, at least, caution, has to be exercised.

And, most of the important points listed on Wikipedia are footnoted. That's where its value as a bibliography comes in. Wikipedia can be a very useful search engine to find links to primary sources.

The problem is that apparently those footnotes are not fully verified and sometimes have non-existent links. I receive relatively frequent emails from Wikipedia users about "broken links" to my site (the one listed below). Upon checking, I find that those links are to phantom pages that never existed on my site which someone has "made up" to comply with the reference requirement at Wikipedia. Multiply that by millions of other articles and tens of millions of other outside sources.

 

[Tibbs4]

As we have seen elsewhere in this discussion, "tried and true, well-trusted" industry-related informational sources, can also provide seriously incorrect information. Additionally, if you look within a given radio market, you will see plenty of examples of "the latest acceptable operating practices" like following PPM guidelines, limiting interaction with listeners vs. playing more music, what time of hour to schedule commercial breaks, how many maximum spots to run in a stop set, whether call letters matter, etc. to not always produce the best results on ratings. Or, seeing stations be in the top echelon of performance and ratings while breaking the rules. Thankfully, radio is not a perfect science or a stationary target.

 

[davideduardo]

As we have seen elsewhere in this discussion, "tried and true, well-trusted" industry-related informational sources, can also provide seriously incorrect information. Additionally, if you look within a given radio market, you will see plenty of examples of "the latest acceptable operating practices" like following PPM guidelines, limiting interaction with listeners vs. playing more music, what time of hour to schedule commercial breaks, how many maximum spots to run in a stop set, whether call letters matter, etc. to not always produce the best results on ratings. Or, seeing stations be in the top echelon of performance and ratings while breaking the rules. Thankfully, radio is not a perfect science or a stationary target.

The real issue is whether a well performing station would do better if it "followed the rules" or whether a low performing station that does might be simply playing the wrong songs or have annoying talent or just a bad signal.

Very anecdotally, I was recently given the programming of a classic hits station that had a heritage "10 in a row" every hour that was pretty much synonymous with the station name. I was very hesitant to change the image and go to what have been proven to be the acceptable positions in PPM for best performance. After all, the station, with a signal covering less than 40% of the market, was around 15th to 17th in 25-54 and I did not want to put this at risk.

However, as I had worked with other stations that had adopted those and other PPM specific practices, I figured I had to take the risk. But it was a scary thing. The "Always 10 in a row every hour" position died. The name was changed to be mostly just the frequency. The music was the same, although I did work long and hard on rotations and flow issues. Did it go down? Nope. In the last book it was the #3 station in the #4 market in America... #2 among commercial stations.

And I've witnessed similar things happen often since I first started tracking PPM results in 2002.