What is the deal with WCBS 101.1 these days?

[wadio]

Basically, what you are saying is that it is wrong to ask what listeners feel about stations and programming (focus groups) and what songs they want to hear and what they don't want to hear (music tests).

Steve Jobs hated focus groups and refused to use them. Had he relied what people "felt" about computers we wouldn't have an iPad or an iPhone today because no focus group could have envisioned the way these devices work.

It took a brilliant designer with nearly absolute power -- unencumbered by the usual corporate researching and foot-dragging -- to create something that nobody even knew they wanted.

Some of the most loved and most successful TV series are ones that "tested" horribly during the first season (back in the days when a show wasn't pulled the moment a focus group's needle began to drop.)

Despite today's focus group mentality, Microsoft survives, TV survives, Radio (we hope) will survive, but that doesn't mean there's anything creative going on. Mediocrity can and does make money -- that's not the issue. It's just that mediocrity is, well, mediocre.

 

[michael hagerty]

You're right and wrong about Steve Jobs.

Yes, he hated focus groups, but Steve wasn't leading Apple design on his own quirks and tastes. He had a rare understanding of what people respond to...and will pay extra for...in premium design. With Steve, function followed form. He wanted something cool, sleek and beautiful. Once that was accomplished, he wanted it to perform in a way that caused the least amount of work and frustration for the end user. And then, when that was done, he wanted to be able to sell it at a price two to four times what the competition was getting for their less-cool, less sleek, less beautiful, less intuitive product.

Apart from portable music devices and iTunes, his way didn't result in dominant market share. If he didn't have the premium pricing to make up the difference, Apple's financial picture wouldn't be anything to write home about. Apple would be dying at the hands of companies that do focus testing when designing their products.

Now...where's the radio analogy here? Radio doesn't make money by selling itself directly to its users. It makes money by selling access to its users to advertisers. Premium pricing exists in that advertisers spend more to reach adults 25-54.

I suspect that if Steve Jobs were to have decided one day to get into commercial, terrestrial radio, he'd have either driven everyone (including himself) crazy trying to create something "the audience doesn't know they want yet" when, in fact, they have expectations that need to be met...or he would have said "This is a different business. We have to fill a tent and we can't charge more than the other top-performing 25-54 stations. Go find out what people want and let's give it to them."

I suspect he'd have done the latter, though terrestrial commercial radio wasn't his kind of business.

I'm writing this on an Apple device. I can do a million different things on it, all based on my tastes and desires at the moment.

A radio station, as I've said before, is a garden hose. Only one thing comes out of it at a time. It needs to appeal to as many people in the target audience at once as it can. If you take a sip expecting cool, fresh water and you get vinegar, you'll find another garden hose...and you'll think twice before you drink from that one again.

 

[michael hagerty]

You're also a little off on the TV reference. Shows that didn't test well didn't make it on the air in the first place. Once they do, it's ratings, not focus groups that determine survival.

 

[davideduardo]

Steve Jobs hated focus groups and refused to use them. Had he relied what people "felt" about computers we wouldn't have an iPad or an iPhone today because no focus group could have envisioned the way these devices work.

It took a brilliant designer with nearly absolute power -- unencumbered by the usual corporate researching and foot-dragging -- to create something that nobody even knew they wanted.

Piss-poor analogy. Radio research is generally not intended to develop a new product.

That may be because radio was invented about a century ago and "commercial stations" have been around for over 90 years.

Radio research is mostly about satisfying existing customers of your product (which may be your station or your format in general).

Apple does do the same thing: they get feedback on bugs, glitches, undesirable features, etc. And they update the software and hardware with considerable frequency based on market trends and individual product sales. It's quite easy to check in with buyers of hard goods, particularly those who have registered a product. Radio users don't register and are, for the most part, anonymous even in the Internet world.

But hard goods use the cash register for ratings. Radio is an intangible and free, and is quite different from a $699 iPhone.

Some of the most loved and most successful TV series are ones that "tested" horribly during the first season (back in the days when a show wasn't pulled the moment a focus group's needle began to drop.)

TV shows don't use focus groups for testing after airing. They often use them prior to airing to determine appeal... but the appeal of a concept does not measure the appeal of a show against the other networks and episode after episode. Another poor analogy.

Despite today's focus group mentality,

Focus Groups and similar things like consumer panels go back to the early 30's; P&G was responsible for using in-home and panel research for the development and maintenance of products.

Microsoft survives,

You mean Microsoft does not research? Funny, I have participated in research for Microsoft going back to the late 80's. I've even quite recently been invited to a focus group about their tablet (I own one of the disgusting, horrendous beasts) where I was offered $150 bucks to drive to some location across town and chat about my disappointment.

TV survives, Radio (we hope) will survive, but that doesn't mean there's anything creative going on. Mediocrity can and does make money -- that's not the issue. It's just that mediocrity is, well, mediocre.

So you are now blaming any problems with radio on the fact that management (when it has enough the money) actually tries to find out what listeners like to hear and then tries to deliver it to them.

 

[wadio]

So you are now blaming any problems with radio on the fact that management (when it has enough the money) actually tries to find out what listeners like to hear and then tries to deliver it to them.

Yes. The problem of mediocrity.

BTW, I never said Microsoft doesn't do market research -- just the opposite. I clearly said there's money to be made with the mediocrity that results from market research. Appealing to what people say they want or think they want is a reasonably safe bet, but the home runs come from creative minds. Creative minds don't function well in a focus group environment.

I do believe that over time mediocrity hurts the bottom line but that's another discussion. In the above post I was responding to the OP who said that CBS-FM isn't lighting a fire under his demo.

 

[TheBigA]

Appealing to what people say they want or think they want is a reasonably safe bet, but the home runs come from creative minds. Creative minds don't function well in a focus group environment.

When it comes to programming a classic hits radio station, the goal isn't to create something new. It's to play the hits. That doesn't necessarily need a "creative mind." It just needs someone who knows what a hit is, and how to mix them in such a way that it doesn't get stale. That's about it. This ain't brain surgery. Let's not make this tougher than it really is. The creative minds would want to know why they're playing 40 year old songs in the first place.

 

[davideduardo]

Yes. The problem of mediocrity.
Creative minds don't function well in a focus group environment. .

Oh, yes they do. A creative programmer is like a creative chef... they take ingredients and put them together in amazing ways.

If you use the right ingredients that produce flavors people like, folks will order your menu items.

There is a reason why turds with Bearnaise sauce don't appear as menu items any to often. It's the same reason that many of the so-called "lost hits" are not played on the radio.

Research just helps the "chef" identify the flavors people like.

 

[davideduardo]

When it comes to programming a classic hits radio station, the goal isn't to create something new. It's to play the hits. That doesn't necessarily need a "creative mind." It just needs someone who knows what a hit is, and how to mix them in such a way that it doesn't get stale. That's about it. This ain't brain surgery. Let's not make this tougher than it really is.

By that standard, a DJ who plays at weddings and birthdays is no different than Deadmau5 or Calvin Harris or Tiësto.

After all, they play the same songs.

But the big-name DJs know how to mix, create mood and flow and are skilled in combining songs to weave a bigger-than-the-sum of the parts experience for those who go to their appearances.

There is a world of things beyond just identifying the hits and playing them in nice, mechanical rotations. Programming a good station is an amalgamation of being a team captain, a cheerleader, an orchestra conductor, a promoter, a writer, a story teller an artist and a visionary.

It helps to be pretty bright, but it's essential to be creative.

 

[TheBigA]

It helps to be pretty bright, but it's essential to be creative.

I don't think that was the context to which I was responding. The kind of creative thinking you're talking about probably works well in focus groups. Because he's just that creative.

 

[wadio]

I suspect that if Steve Jobs were to have decided one day to get into commercial, terrestrial radio, he'd have either driven
everyone (including himself) crazy trying to create something "the audience doesn't know they want yet" when, in fact, they have expectations that need to be met...or he would have said "This is a different business. We have to fill a tent and we can't charge more than the other top-performing 25-54 stations. Go find out what people want and let's give it to them."

Maybe. But I think it's more likely his "market research" would have been listening to other stations that are programmed to the focus groups, then making tweaks based on his intuition.

For example, he might have created his own exclusive "hits" by having bands come into the studio -- through the huge glass entryway -- and perform live, then sweeten the best tracks, play them a lot and get the audience hooked on the exclusive content. According to Rick Sklar, WABC in effect created its own hits based on the DJs instinctive picks at staff meetings.

Then, since Jobs didn't mind spending money to make money, he might have drastically reduced the spot load and charged a substantial premium for the remaining avails. The conventional wisdom says, "you can't do that!" Just as they said nobody would buy a computer without a keyboard.

The cliche is "thinking outside the box," and I don't think it's done much in radio today. Radio desperately needs a Steve Jobs type to shake it up.

 

[TheBigA]

According to Rick Sklar, WABC in effect created its own hits based on the DJs instinctive picks at staff meetings.

Can you show me where Rick Sklar said that? He was not a believer in DJs picking music.

 

[michael hagerty]

This is rapidly turning into "If Napoleon had laser-guided missiles".

Steve Jobs' creativity is one thing. His money is another. Maybe what you're saying here is you need to be wealthy enough to be willing to lose money for a significant period of time on the chance...by no means a sure thing...that the audience will prefer your intuition-enhanced version of what they've told competing stations they want to hear, which the competition is delivering on consistently.

And if they don't?


Even if you've got the kind of money Steve had, you're not going to be happy about flushing it when there's a proven method by which you could have had a return on your investment.

As for Rick Sklar and WABC, that may have been true in the very early days, when they were losing to WINS and WMCA, but the WABC that eventually rose to #1 waited until a record was doing well on the Billboard Hot 100 and was selling locally (off play from the competition) before they'd add it.

And when Sklar embraced the "only what's selling" ethos, what happened? A list of 77 currents dropped to 20-25 records each week.

For most of its 22 years, WABC was last to play a record, not first.

Spot load? Let's say the average is 14 minutes an hour on music stations.

What's a "drastic reduction"? Half? It has to be enough for listeners to notice a difference.
So let's say half.

To offset that, you need to double your rate.

Know what happens? The ad agencies simply buy around you. Every other competitor in your demo gets the buy...and they let you starve.

Maybe. But I think it's more likely his "market research" would have been listening to other stations that are programmed to the focus groups, then making tweaks based on his intuition.

For example, he might have created his own exclusive "hits" by having bands come into the studio -- through the huge glass entryway -- and perform live, then sweeten the best tracks, play them a lot and get the audience hooked on the exclusive content. According to Rick Sklar, WABC in effect created its own hits based on the DJs instinctive picks at staff meetings.

Then, since Jobs didn't mind spending money to make money, he might have drastically reduced the spot load and charged a substantial premium for the remaining avails. The conventional wisdom says, "you can't do that!" Just as they said nobody would buy a computer without a keyboard.

The cliche is "thinking outside the box," and I don't think it's done much in radio today. Radio desperately needs a Steve Jobs type to shake it up.

 

[Silkie]

You could always refer them to Alan Lee, who plays nothing but those good old, obscure oldies. Of course they would have to log on to Maryland radio, but that's where you'll find the obscure great stuff.

 

[wadio]

Like I say, you can't sell a computer without a keyboard.

Can you show me where Rick Sklar said that? He was not a believer in DJs picking music.

Yes, Rocking America, Chapter 17. See references to "Tuesday morning music meetings." There are more details about these meetings in the book but I couldn't locate them with a quick scan.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

Rocking America, Chapter 17. See references to "Tuesday morning music meetings." There are more details about these meetings in the book but I couldn't locate them with a quick scan.

If you had read the *entire* chapter, you'd know that those music meetings were about picking the new songs to add as "pick hits," and had nothing to do with the very short list of currents (usually, during their time as the top station in the market, between 14 and 18 records). The "currents" list was generated exclusively by sales figures.

 

[wadio]

Read my original post -- I was referring to pick hits!

 

[michael hagerty]

Not having a copy of Rick's book handy, I went for the next best thing from the WABC tribute site:

WABC, again through the guidance of program director Rick Sklar, decided what music to play in an extremely organized and scientific way. First, WABC had one of the shortest playlists in radio. According to Rick Sklar in his book Rocking America, the records that made it to this list were determined by rotating a sales survey from among 550 record stores. Then, every Tuesday morning, WABC held a "music meeting" where one or two songs were added to the WABC playlist.

Basically, Rick brought five records that were already hits into the meeting, played them for Harrison, Lundy, Ingram and company and let them feel like they had a voice in the music by narrowing it down to 1 or 2 (and the ones that lost that week would get added in the next week or two because they were already hits, just not on WABC.

They really were "pick hits".

"These are hits, boys. Pick two."

 

[TheBigA]

Yes, Rocking America, Chapter 17. See references to "Tuesday morning music meetings." There are more details about these meetings in the book but I couldn't locate them with a quick scan.

No where in that chapter does he talk about "DJs instinctive picks." The whole chapter is about being pitched by promo guys, how he avoided them, and preferred to go by research. On page 93, he talks about the data he collected in making his decisions, the phone calls to record stores, and the process of choosing songs. Doesn't sound very "instinctive" to me.

On page 92, he talks very clearly about how some DJs wanted to pick the music for their own shows, and he told them no. He says Sam Holman left as a result.

 

[wadio]

Well, I'm delighted that everyone's so content with the status quo. I guess there's good reason for Cumulus, Clear Channel, etc. to keep doing what they're doing. Meanwhile the younger demos who are looking for something less mundane can continue to drift off into cyberspace.

 

[TheBigA]

Well, I'm delighted that everyone's so content with the status quo.

Who said anything about status quo? You attributed a quote to Sklar, and we called you on it. Nothing more. Sklar was not a fan of "instinct." He was one of the first who programmed by research, not by the gut. It worked for him.

Meanwhile the younger demos who are looking for something less mundane can continue to drift off into cyberspace.

That's a stretch. The statistics show very clearly that they love streaming traditional "mundane" radio stations. The one thing they'd like more of is programming that addresses their taste in music. That would mean fewer radio stations programming for older demos, like WCBS. While that's going to happen in the next five years, it's not going to happen now. Just keep in mind that cyberspace, as you call it, is becoming just as "mundane" as traditional radio. That's what younger demos are looking for. They like predictability.