What, no November ratings talk?

[Kelly A]

Thanks very much for taking the time to articulate. Interesting thoughts and comments.
Sounds like one issue (not much different in the Alt. format as mainstream pop) is that the corporate programmers find a VERY SAFE lane in which to live.

Yes, they call that research. I know you're very familiar with that concept.

The product needs surprises once in awhile...not the kind that leave listeners wondering "are these guys off their med's" but something they might not normally do -- and probably won't do again for a few weeks.

Given the majority of people under 55 don't listen to radio exclusively, the effort of throwing a curve ball once every week or so would have no substantive benefit.

Maybe it's a song, maybe it's a background story or interview with an artist, or some history about how a composition came to be -- but something more than "here's the 7th of 11 in a row" spit between the 987th spin of a song within a week.

And this coming from someone who's worked in the radio biz back when Top40 ruled.

My two fave shows on Sirius right now ... Kasem's AT40 reruns (because you get the entire playlist for a week -- songs that would NEVER be played in rotation), and Tommy James' "Getting Together" on the 60s channel -- because he spins stories about the evolution of songs, and sets are put together with similar rhythms, similar licks, etc. -- without being so hit-with-hammer obvious as explaining why they are playing those songs together. Sounds like Audacy (and damn near everyone else) could take a hint from the "surprise me" factor behind those two examples.

It's hard to relate to Alt rock, when you admittedly prefer listening to 60's and AT40. Which, BTW, used to rotate power songs sometimes twice an hour.

 

[MVB13]

So, I've thought about this the past few days and even tuned into 107.7 in the car for a while on Friday. I also looked at their playlists a few different times of the day. I guess my complaint mostly is with Audacity and its "gatekeeping" for what's alternative music.

For example, "Beggin'" by Måneskin is getting lots of airplay on The End. It's a four-year-old song that got hot after Måneskin won the Eurovision contest this year. I was wondering why it's getting so many plays and then saw it's high on the Billboard "alternative airplay" chart, so The End's not alone in pushing that song. Mostly, Audacity doesn't stray too far from playlists that mostly favor pop songs with alternative elements in them rather than truly alternative music. And they sprinkle in LOTS of '90s and early 2000s alt hits over and over; seriously, the amount of Red Hot Chili Peppers songs they play from that band's "Californication" era is absurd.

But I looked up playlists from the legendary KROQ-FM in L.A. (also Audacity) and was surprised/depressed to see they play EVEN MORE old alt hits than The End in a typical musical block. So, this obviously is an Audacity thing. Look, I love vintage Nirvana and other alt classics, but if I'm going to listen to the radio rather than a Spotify playlist, I want more than just the classics. For example, The End introduced my ears to Meg Myers when she first hit it big in 2014. She's since made several albums with singles that would fit nicely on the radio. But the only song they play regularly by her is the early 2020 cover of "Running Up That Hill" that she did (and they play it A LOT). They do the same with other artists; Lana del Rey had a very highly regarded album this year, but they tend to play only one older hit by her or her cover of Sublime's "Doin' Time."

Anyway, when The End played yet another old Red Hot Chili Peppers' song during Friday morning drive time, I went over to KEXP, which played TORRES' "Don't Go Puttin' Wishes in my Head" and then Wet Leg's "Chaise Lounge" in succession. Those are two of my favorite songs of the past year. Wet Leg was featured as a "buzz artist" for about a week on The End in the late summer and doesn't get play anymore there. There's plenty of good new music that I'd consider alternative, but Audacity's not playing most of that. Sorry for the rant!

In NYC Audacy's Alt 92.3 overplays Californiacation Era of RHCP they only play Fall Out Boy from pre-hiatus days yet when they launched in 2017 in NYC they played new FOB. They ignore songs from artists like Of Monsters and Men, Pearl Jam, and others.

 

[fordranger797]

Yes, they call that research. I know you're very familiar with that concept.

Given the majority of people under 55 don't listen to radio exclusively, the effort of throwing a curve ball once every week or so would have no substantive benefit.

And this coming from someone who's worked in the radio biz back when Top40 ruled.

It's hard to relate to Alt rock, when you admittedly prefer listening to 60's and AT40. Which, BTW, used to rotate power songs sometimes twice an hour.

I am genuinely curious about how this market research is conducted. Are they testing listeners who are already listeners of the format, or people who are not listeners? For the alternative format (and Audacy in particular), these changes are certainly not something that a hardcore fan of the format would want. If these changes were effective, I would expect to see other alternative stations following Audacy and making changes as well. This has not happened. Perhaps there are a few listeners who don't mind the changes, but those who listen for new unique music probably aren't interested. I can understand the need to appeal to a different demographic, but these changes don't seem to be working as intended.

Personally, I view this current situation as a missed opportunity in the Seattle market. Listeners who would have been a fan of alternative before the recent changes are arguably a demographic worth targeting (tending to have a higher income and more spending power than other listeners).

 

[fordranger797]

In NYC Audacy's Alt 92.3 overplays Californiacation Era of RHCP they only play Fall Out Boy from pre-hiatus days yet when they launched in 2017 in NYC they played new FOB. They ignore songs from artists like Of Monsters and Men, Pearl Jam, and others.

Seems to be a common pattern right now. Certainly not enough new music making the cut, and the new music that does make the cut is CHR.

 

[davideduardo]

I am genuinely curious about how this market research is conducted. Are they testing listeners who are already listeners of the format, or people who are not listeners?

That depends on the type of project and the format and the ratings of a station.

A well established and well-achieving station will research its own listeners to keep them happy. Jf a station targets "25-44" but has some 18-24 and some 45-54, they will look at the median age and the hours spent listening by narrow age groups. Then they will recruit the core, such as 28-40 or something similar. The people recruited will have to listen enough to know all the songs, so "heavy" listeners are recruited

If a station wants to improve ratings, they may recruit by playing several short pods of hooks of the general kind of music... for example, one newer, one older, one an average. To get in the test, you have to "like" at least two of the three. Likely a station would want a majority of their own listeners to solidify the base plus "outsiders" to bring in new cume.

A start-up may recruit based on just the music using sample pods, perhaps not just age based but also style based. But before that, they likely did a "perceptual" to determine the appeal of the format before spending money (likely $25,000 or more) on a music test.

For the alternative format (and Audacy in particular), these changes are certainly not something that a hardcore fan of the format would want.

Depends. The alternative partisans are so fragmented into subgroups that they may target one in particular.

If these changes were effective, I would expect to see other alternative stations following Audacy and making changes as well.

It's not that obvious because in a format that is not nationally uniform, each market will behave differently. Grand Rapids and Mobile will in no way have the same playlists for any kind of rock.

This has not happened. Perhaps there are a few listeners who don't mind the changes, but those who listen for new unique music probably aren't interested. I can understand the need to appeal to a different demographic, but these changes don't seem to be working as intended.

New, unique music means "music I have not heard before". For most demos and listeners over 25, that is generally a very dangerous category.

Personally, I view this current situation as a missed opportunity in the Seattle market. Listeners who would have been a fan of alternative before the recent changes are arguably a demographic worth targeting (tending to have a higher income and more spending power than other listeners).

Most ad buys don't look at incomes and spending. They look at the age and gender and sometimes ethnicity of the heavy consumer for a brand, and buy to reach as many as possible.

And, as I have said before, the alternative partisan is in a fragmented sector of the audience. There are several ways of doing alternative, each will annoy or drive off the partisans of the other subsets.

 

[fordranger797]

That depends on the type of project and the format and the ratings of a station.

A well established and well-achieving station will research its own listeners to keep them happy. Jf a station targets "25-44" but has some 18-24 and some 45-54, they will look at the median age and the hours spent listening by narrow age groups. Then they will recruit the core, such as 28-40 or something similar. The people recruited will have to listen enough to know all the songs, so "heavy" listeners are recruited

If a station wants to improve ratings, they may recruit by playing several short pods of hooks of the general kind of music... for example, one newer, one older, one an average. To get in the test, you have to "like" at least two of the three. Likely a station would want a majority of their own listeners to solidify the base plus "outsiders" to bring in new cume.

A start-up may recruit based on just the music using sample pods, perhaps not just age based but also style based. But before that, they likely did a "perceptual" to determine the appeal of the format before spending money (likely $25,000 or more) on a music test.

Depends. The alternative partisans are so fragmented into subgroups that they may target one in particular.

It's not that obvious because in a format that is not nationally uniform, each market will behave differently. Grand Rapids and Mobile will in no way have the same playlists for any kind of rock.

New, unique music means "music I have not heard before". For most demos and listeners over 25, that is generally a very dangerous category.

Most ad buys don't look at incomes and spending. They look at the age and gender and sometimes ethnicity of the heavy consumer for a brand, and buy to reach as many as possible.

And, as I have said before, the alternative partisan is in a fragmented sector of the audience. There are several ways of doing alternative, each will annoy or drive off the partisans of the other subsets.

Thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed explanation about the research process, David. It makes sense that fragmentation becoming a problem, and I don't personally think that the fragmentation issue is isolated to the alternative. I can certainly see why safer formats (like classic hits or classic rock) would be the optimal use of a signal, as it's pretty hard to fragment when the music hasn't changed, and can only change as more recent tracks are added.

I agree, there are many different ways to do alternative. This is a good thing. With that being said, I still think an argument could be made for the Audacy alternative format being more fragmented now than it was before. Now we have a playlist that consists primarily of 90's gold tracks with recent CHR tracks. This stands out to me as a major fragmentation issue, as these two styles don't seem to fit together whatsoever. Before the streamlining happened, there was definitely an identity issue with the format, but most people would put up with it. I would even argue that exclusively focusing on 90's alternative tracks would have been a safer bet. I assume most fans of the format would still be unhappy, but it would have made sense. At least in this scenario, the music is set in stone and no music decisions need to be made.

 

[Kelly A]

Seems to be a common pattern right now. Certainly not enough new music making the cut, and the new music that does make the cut is CHR.

And that's the thing. I've seen tons of Audacy-bashing going on around here, primarily regarding their Alt format stations. Did it ever occur to any of the arm chair PD's that maybe changes in the music industry, including new artists going straight to social media and TikTok? And that maybe there isn't enough new music from traditional music companies to fulfill the unrealistic expectations, that somehow Alternative format is the ONLY place to hear new music?
Related observation: 75% of the arm chair PD's around this site live too much in the past, like nothing has changed since their high school years. It's frankly, bizarre.
As BigA has pointed out many times; all things change. This isn't 1985, 1999, or even 2005 anymore. Radio isn't the only game in town, nor is the music industry the same as what it was when radio was the only game in town. Time to emerge from the time warp.

 

[TheBigA]

Did it ever occur to any of the arm chair PD's that maybe changes in the music industry, including new artists going straight to social media and TikTok?

I've been to several music conferences where musicians are being told to avoid record labels and traditional media. Take your music directly to the people. Tour non-stop, sell your music at the shows, build a loyal fan base, get email addresses from potential fans in order to do direct-mail. That's the business model for alternative bands.

 

[boombox4]

I've been to several music conferences where musicians are being told to avoid record labels and traditional media. Take your music directly to the people. Tour non-stop, sell your music at the shows, build a loyal fan base, get email addresses from potential fans in order to do direct-mail. That's the business model for alternative bands.

I know a few musicians who are doing just that. They used to be part of the industry, had recording contracts. Not big names, but they had songs played on the radio. Now they are bypassing the middleman. If radio wants to give them a boost, they're fine with that, but that's not part of their plan.

I can't say they represent all musicians out there, but I've seen what BigA speaks about actually happening.

In the book world, the equivalent is the independent publisher. Bypassing the big publishing companies. Some independently published authors make a lot of money at it, too (most, of course, don't, but they are at least 'published', as opposed to "publishing" nothing but rejection slips).

With the internet, a lot of these former 'glory' careers are going independent. I suppose one radio version is the independent podcast.

 

[semoochie]

So, I've thought about this the past few days and even tuned into 107.7 in the car for a while on Friday. I also looked at their playlists a few different times of the day. I guess my complaint mostly is with Audacity and its "gatekeeping" for what's alternative music.

For example, "Beggin'" by Måneskin is getting lots of airplay on The End. It's a four-year-old song that got hot after Måneskin won the Eurovision contest this year. I was wondering why it's getting so many plays and then saw it's high on the Billboard "alternative airplay" chart, so The End's not alone in pushing that song. Mostly, Audacity doesn't stray too far from playlists that mostly favor pop songs with alternative elements in them rather than truly alternative music. And they sprinkle in LOTS of '90s and early 2000s alt hits over and over; seriously, the amount of Red Hot Chili Peppers songs they play from that band's "Californication" era is absurd.

But I looked up playlists from the legendary KROQ-FM in L.A. (also Audacity) and was surprised/depressed to see they play EVEN MORE old alt hits than The End in a typical musical block. So, this obviously is an Audacity thing. Look, I love vintage Nirvana and other alt classics, but if I'm going to listen to the radio rather than a Spotify playlist, I want more than just the classics. For example, The End introduced my ears to Meg Myers when she first hit it big in 2014. She's since made several albums with singles that would fit nicely on the radio. But the only song they play regularly by her is the early 2020 cover of "Running Up That Hill" that she did (and they play it A LOT). They do the same with other artists; Lana del Rey had a very highly regarded album this year, but they tend to play only one older hit by her or her cover of Sublime's "Doin' Time."

Anyway, when The End played yet another old Red Hot Chili Peppers' song during Friday morning drive time, I went over to KEXP, which played TORRES' "Don't Go Puttin' Wishes in my Head" and then Wet Leg's "Chaise Lounge" in succession. Those are two of my favorite songs of the past year. Wet Leg was featured as a "buzz artist" for about a week on The End in the late summer and doesn't get play anymore there. There's plenty of good new music that I'd consider alternative, but Audacity's not playing most of that. Sorry for the rant!

"Beggin'" is not a four year-old song. It's a 54 year-old Four Seasons song that peaked at #16 in 1967 and disappeared completely for five decades! I never heard of anything like this happening before. Usually(dare I say, always)an ancient song(by pop standards)is resurrected only if it was popular in the first place! I certainly never heard any unpopular 1913 songs have a sudden resurgence in 1967!

 

[TheBigA]

"Beggin'" is not a four year-old song. It's a 54 year-old Four Seasons song that peaked at #16 in 1967

Not the same song. This one uses language that no one used in records in the 60s

 

[Treehouse SWL]

Not the same song. This one uses language that no one used in records in the 60s

I guess it is "officially" a cover, but with liberties taken on the old lyrics. This doesn't make me like this song any more than I did before, though. Maneskin fans complain after band perform ‘Beggin’ at AMAs instead of original song

 

[TheBigA]

I guess it is "officially" a cover, but with liberties taken on the old lyrics.

I see what you mean. This version is based on a previous cover by Madcon, who added the lyrics:

Why we got good sh*t, don't embrace it?
Why the feel for the need to replace me?

I promise you that wasn't in the original.

 

[iamarussianpirate]

Blue you hit it on the head when you talked about shaking things up. I'm not sure why Kelly was saying you're living in the past or that throwing curve balls doesn't matter. Of course it matters, and the fact that our medium hasn't been doing that is one of the reasons that the 18-34's dont come back as often as they used to. PPM homogenized radio, took away the creativity, and turned the personality into an afterthought. Kelly, people watch Mr. Beast and other huge YouTubers specifically because they know crazy things will happen and it will be entertaining. That's how radio used to be. It's not living in the past to say that PD's and jocks should have the creative freedom to mix things up. Those things matter. I still remember when Coolio Gangstas Paradise (you can Google that one Kelly) came out and Eric Powers at KUBE played it 3 times in a row because he knew it would be a massive hit. That would never happen now which is unfortunate.

 

[TheBigA]

PPM homogenized radio, took away the creativity, and turned the personality into an afterthought.

So you're saying that if we just hired lots of local personalities, and let them do whatever they want, that 18-34s would come running back to FM radio?

BTW the thing about Mr. Beast is he's independent, not an employee. He owns his character and that's what gives him the ability to do what he wants. He doesn't work for Google. He takes all the risk on his end, and in turn, shares in the revenues. Radio DJs can do those kinds of deals with radio companies, but they'd have to put their own money at risk. That's not typically what a radio DJ wants to do. They want a salary with benefits. You can't live off the company troth, but then expect them to allow you to do whatever you want. I know some radio personalities who've been willing to sign indie deals with radio companies, and they seem pretty happy. But it's not for everyone.

 

[davideduardo]

Blue you hit it on the head when you talked about shaking things up. I'm not sure why Kelly was saying you're living in the past or that throwing curve balls doesn't matter. Of course it matters, and the fact that our medium hasn't been doing that is one of the reasons that the 18-34's dont come back as often as they used to.

18-34's use less radio because now they have options of individualized, personalized streams vs. one-for-many in commercial radio.

PPM homogenized radio, took away the creativity, and turned the personality into an afterthought.

The PPM only showed that some niche formats had no "hidden cume"... a term used in diary markets for stations that got lots of secondary listening, but were not top of mind and did not get written in the diary.

The PPM did nothing but make stations more aware of ratings as they got weekly numbers, full books 13 times a year, and also got lots more qualitative data.

And, actually, the PPM encouraged group operators to do secondary formats on some of their stations as they appeared in the ratings, while in diary markets more people just did not write them in due to lessened awareness.

Kelly, people watch Mr. Beast and other huge YouTubers specifically because they know crazy things will happen and it will be entertaining.

And because those videos and streams are not federally regulated for song lyrics and DJ content.

That's how radio used to be.

No, it's not. Radio has always been federally regulated, and content subject to standards of decency.

It's not living in the past to say that PD's and jocks should have the creative freedom to mix things up.

"Mix things up" is very vague. It has been 60 years since most formats allowed DJs to pick their own music. When album rock evolved in the later 60's, and jocks played whatever they wanted, AOR evolved and rockers with controlled playlists pretty much killed the album rockers... not due to ratings system, not due to "freedom"... but due to the fact that researched, controlled playlists do better than some jock playing their personal faves.

Those things matter. I still remember when Coolio Gangstas Paradise (you can Google that one Kelly) came out and Eric Powers at KUBE played it 3 times in a row because he knew it would be a massive hit. That would never happen now which is unfortunate.

You have to know that such a "triple play" was planned and authorized. Probably the PD, the MD and the jock figured out how to stage the debut of the song to get talk and promotional value.

 

[TheBigA]

It has been 60 years since most formats allowed DJs to pick their own music.

The reason for this is because some DJs who picked their own music became susceptible to bribery by record labels or had other selfish motivations. That led to the payola laws. BTW payola laws ONLY apply to broadcast radio, not digital streaming. Another limitation forced on broadcast radio that doesn't exist in the digital world. So yes, radio would be a lot freer if it wasn't forced to live under obscenity and payola laws. It would be a lot freer if radio stations were funded by listeners instead of advertisers, as we see with KEXP. But as long as commercial radio is forced to live under all of these rules, and as long as listeners have options that don't live under those rules, broadcasting will operate at a major handicap.

 

[davideduardo]

The reason for this is because some DJs who picked their own music became susceptible to bribery by record labels or had other selfish motivations. That led to the payola laws. BTW payola laws ONLY apply to broadcast radio, not digital streaming. Another limitation forced on broadcast radio that doesn't exist in the digital world. So yes, radio would be a lot freer if it wasn't forced to live under obscenity and payola laws. It would be a lot freer if radio stations were funded by listeners instead of advertisers, as we see with KEXP. But as long as commercial radio is forced to live under all of these rules, and as long as listeners have options that don't live under those rules, broadcasting will operate at a major handicap.

And the date when the Alan Freed, Dick Clark and other payola investigations were made was more than 60 years ago.

A few formats were free-form. I was at a jazz station and an R&B station for my first five years of radio: the jazz station allowed us to pick our own music but the R&B station had a strict color coded playlist with "matching" clocks. Classical stations were mostly pre-programmed a month in advance so program guides, a major income source, could be printed.

Most Top 40's had weekly music meetings, and after the payola incidents, even the GM might sit in on them at some stations. While that did not prevent things like the 80's era "coke-o-grams" and suites at the conventions in the disco era late 70's with "c&c" (coke and call girls), the ability of jocks to pick songs was very limited in markets that mattered. Yes, some of the PDs continued to get favors and finances well after that, but jocks did not.

 

[TheBigA]

And the date when the Alan Freed, Dick Clark and other payola investigations were made was more than 60 years ago.

To be clear, congress has had the opportunity to repeal those rules, and they've chosen to allow them to stand.

This is not to say that there are no rules in the digital world. The music industry imposed a series of airplay rules that only affect digital and satellite. They handcuff DJs and streaming services over the number of songs by one artist or from an album that can be played without written permission from the copyright holder. Like the payola laws, the digital airplay laws are totally outdated 25 years after they were imposed.

 

[CarAgencyGuy]

Just remember the old radio adage as shared with me from a well know PD here in town, "everyone wants to be a program director, but no one wants to take the pay cut"