Okay folks, let me explain...You were a little hard on me about my comments about GRR, but I'm only a listener and not a pro like many of you apparently are. From a listeners viewpoint, the main problem is that FM radio, even with all these fancy names for their formats, still have such narrow playlists. I've been listening to radio since WING went rock and roll in 1956. It just seems that every new format still reduces the number of tunes played. The Fox is a perfect example. I'll bet they don't have a playist of 500 songs, and they play them every day. There are thousands of songs, whether they be 60's, 70's, 80's or even 90's, that never get played on radio. I just can't help but think there has to be a market out there for a station that would serve that audience, that's all. And I still believe that most listeners get tired of all the talk talk talk especially in the mornings.
-
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
WGRR- Again
- Thread starter FRR
- Start date
Oh, yeah. Well ClassiX plays 20,000 songs, so there. 
FRR said:
Keep in mind that there were fewer than half the number of stations in the country in 1956 than there are now. As more stations signed on, narrowcasting became more common. There are two big reasons for this that come to my head immediately. The first is that targetting a specific audience became an absolute necessity. New stations began trying to chip away enough an audience from the established stations to survive. As more stations started doing that, the established stations realized very quickly that they could no longer target everybody. Targetting everybody just assured that their audience would leave them for stations that played exactly what they wanted. It was also impractical to sell a mass appeal station as no advertiser would make a 12+ buy at a high price when it could get the same results with a 25-54 buy at far less. That's why you have stations with playlists of 500 songs. These stations are simply targetting a specific audience, and, yes, competition is so steep that they want to make sure they only play songs that will keep their audience. If even one target listener reacts negatively to a song, it is virtually certain to be axed or played in extremely low rotation.
The reason for all the talk in the morning is similar. More people listen to radio between 7 and 8 AM than any other time of the day. With so much potential audience, you want to appeal to everyone in your target demo. Therefore, you try to play even fewer songs that will turn off those listeners, and you try to load up on commercials because it's an efficient way for advertisers to reach exactly who they want at your highest rates. Talk heavy morning shows do better than music intensive ones because there are less songs that could potentially make someone change the station. Therefore, you find lots of talk in the morning.
Yes, there are a lot of great songs that don't get airplay very much, if at all. When you say you want wider playlists, what you're really saying is that you want wider playlists of your favorite songs. The problem is that you have favorite songs that most people don't like. Playing too many of those songs in too short of a time span means a station only you enjoy, which means no advertiser will support it. As an example, I was talking to my sister just this evening, and I told her I really liked the song "I'll Be Alright Without You" by Journey. She said she wasn't familiar with the song. The reason is that it's pretty much of a dead song. It gets about two spins a week nationwide. I love the song. It brings back great memories and is optimistic in its message. However, enough people don't want to hear the song that it doesn't justify much airplay at all. There are plenty of songs that did very well in the top-40 that get even fewer spins on the radio today. I also would rather not hear "I'll Be Alright Without You" if it means I have to hear songs like "Shannon" by Henry Gross and "Season in the Sun" by Terry Jacks. I suspect you feel much the same way toward many songs. Remember, radio is a business. If it doesn't make money, it doesn't last. For the most part, short and safe playlists make the most money because a tune out may mean the listener may not come back to your station for quite some time. A smaller number of listeners equals a smaller number of advertisers which equals less profit. It's really all about the bottom line!
W
WyllyWylly
Guest
Amen. And thank you for a well thought out explanation.
That is a great explanation, but besides explaining why stations do what they do, it also suggests an explanation of why people are finding alternatives to radio.
The aversion to scaring off listeners with unfamiliarity, better exemplified by Frank Zappa or Little Feat or other critically acclaimed but not bestselling artists than by Terry Jacks, kind of reminds me of why politicians tend not to say much of anything.. if they throw something out there people don't like, they risk turning them off.
That may be why you find so many politicians tell you they like getting everybody good jobs, cutting taxes, or limiting illegal immigration, but you don't get specifics because someone might realize they are taking a hit if an actual detailed plan is proposed. So voters may not be frightened by their congressperson, but they also don't believe that he or she will do anything meaningful.
Likewise terrestrial radio rarely offends its core listeners, but rarely does it give them a pleasant surprise. One of my favorite bands is played on the Fox frequently, but only a handful of songs. I hardly care if I hear those songs again, even though I think they're great songs, because I've heard them hundreds of times.
I don't exactly blame politicians for avoiding being straight with people, because anytime anyone says something controversial, it's a potential disaster. Likewise I don't exactly blame programmers for trying to avoid offending their core, but in both cases, the resulting product is mediocre at best.
In the case of politics, the result of inoffensiveness is that half the eligible population doesn't vote.
In the case of radio the result is the ipod.
The aversion to scaring off listeners with unfamiliarity, better exemplified by Frank Zappa or Little Feat or other critically acclaimed but not bestselling artists than by Terry Jacks, kind of reminds me of why politicians tend not to say much of anything.. if they throw something out there people don't like, they risk turning them off.
That may be why you find so many politicians tell you they like getting everybody good jobs, cutting taxes, or limiting illegal immigration, but you don't get specifics because someone might realize they are taking a hit if an actual detailed plan is proposed. So voters may not be frightened by their congressperson, but they also don't believe that he or she will do anything meaningful.
Likewise terrestrial radio rarely offends its core listeners, but rarely does it give them a pleasant surprise. One of my favorite bands is played on the Fox frequently, but only a handful of songs. I hardly care if I hear those songs again, even though I think they're great songs, because I've heard them hundreds of times.
I don't exactly blame politicians for avoiding being straight with people, because anytime anyone says something controversial, it's a potential disaster. Likewise I don't exactly blame programmers for trying to avoid offending their core, but in both cases, the resulting product is mediocre at best.
In the case of politics, the result of inoffensiveness is that half the eligible population doesn't vote.
In the case of radio the result is the ipod.
exradio said:
Well, yes and no. I won't tell you everything looks rosy for the radio business and that it's without problems or concerns. Certainly, if anything is written on radio's death certificate as the cause, it will be Docket 80-90, which opened the floodgates for more and more radio stations with less and less viability while reducing viability of the other stations as a consequence. However, radio still has about the same reach it always has and is easily the most effective form of media when it comes to reaching the most people. Yes, there are some TSL problems. I seem to recall TSL is down about 15% over the last 10 years, and, no matter what the spin, that's not a good thing. It probably comes from a variety of factors ranging from new alternatives being available to longer stopsets. The short playlist is probably less of a cause than most people think. While songs definitely have burn potential, which explains the demise of some formats (70's/80's/jammin' oldies, though Cincinnati was the exception because it was freshened up and constantly reevalulated), we need to remember that the average iPod has fewer songs than the average radio station's playlist. As an example, my iPod has 481 songs, and that is well above average for iPods and well below the average station playlist! And, yes, the iPod and satellite do cut down my time spent listening to terrestrial radio!
B
baltcpa2012
Guest
FRR said:
I know. Some of these guys are such meanies. :'(
- Status