Where the hits REALLY came from. Two books that tell the truth.

[Avid Listener]

The fact that there were many investigations and less than a dozen indictments over the last 55 years should tell you that there was far less of that kind of behaviour than some authors or journalists who never set foot in a radio station would have you believe.

Yes, the fact that political forces who depend on the cooperation of the media are reluctant to prosecute media companies and make them into enemies tells me a great deal.

 

[davideduardo]

Yes, the fact that political forces who depend on the cooperation of the media are reluctant to prosecute media companies and make them into enemies tells me a great deal.

In the Top 40 era we are discussing (60's to 80's), there were very few large media companies since national broadcast ownership was limited to 7 AM and 7 FM stations. That is a specious argument since there was no risk of offending a powerful force since such forces, in radio, did not exist.

Payola is a federal crime. It could jeopardize the license of a station that allowed it to happen, too. I doubt the federal prosecutors or the FCC were much afraid of some company with 10 or 12 radio stations.

Your position is really headed into the black helicopter zone.

 

[Avid Listener]

Your position is really headed into the black helicopter zone.

Still riding your unicorn, aren't you?

 

[TheBigA]

Yes, the fact that political forces who depend on the cooperation of the media are reluctant to prosecute media companies and make them into enemies tells me a great deal.

Maybe you need a course in civics. The political forces aren't the ones involved in prosecution. Two very separate groups.

But hey, if you have any recent examples, we'd all love to see them. Otherwise, you're just presenting ancient history.

 

[davideduardo]

Still riding your unicorn, aren't you?

No, you presented an invalid and rather absurd argument.

In what we have been calling the "classic hits" period (60's, 70's and 80's pop hits) there were no radio groups with more than 7 AM and 7 FM in the whole country. None presented any "threat" to Federal prosecutors or the FCC.

Further, the offense of payola (defined as being an individual's acceptance of consideration in exchange for song play without the consent of management) is not a charge against a company, anyway. It is personal: John Doe accepted a vacation trip from Big Tune records, It is not "WZYX took prizes from Big Tune Radio". In fact, if a station receives consideration from a record company... which is legal, by the way... it falls under the commercial ID rules of the FCC.

It should be recognized that cases of payola are individual transgressions and represent not just a violation of Federal law but also theft and misappropriation of station property by individual DJs or PDs and not ownership, which is the damaged party.

 

[Avid Listener]

No, you presented an invalid and rather absurd argument.

In what we have been calling the "classic hits" period (60's, 70's and 80's pop hits) there were no radio groups with more than 7 AM and 7 FM in the whole country. None presented any "threat" to Federal prosecutors or the FCC.

Further, the offense of payola (defined as being an individual's acceptance of consideration in exchange for song play without the consent of management) is not a charge against a company, anyway. It is personal: John Doe accepted a vacation trip from Big Tune records, It is not "WZYX took prizes from Big Tune Radio". In fact, if a station receives consideration from a record company... which is legal, by the way... it falls under the commercial ID rules of the FCC.

It should be recognized that cases of payola are individual transgressions and represent not just a violation of Federal law but also theft and misappropriation of station property by individual DJs or PDs and not ownership, which is the damaged party.

The thing is, if the government attacks any industry, it risks making enemies. I noted that I said "cooperation of the media". That is, the entire industry. That includes both those who own or control the channels of distribution and those who control the manufacture of content for the channels. Even if the big-three networks only owned 7 stations each, attack the industry and you've made an enemy of those companies.

Now, if anyone doubts that Federal prosecutors don't answer to the Attorney General, who is appointed by and answers to the President, who is absolutely an "elected official", or that Presidents don't have political advisors who influence every instruction the President gives to every Cabinet officer, they can borrow David's unicorn for a ride.

The thing is, the people who paid the bribes, after the statute of limitations expired, bragged about paying bribes. They've got nothing to lose by telling the truth. But, the people who defend the radio broadcasting industry, the loyal "company men", will always jump to the defense of their industry.

Why is this important? It goes towards being the sort of "proof" so often demanded about the assertion that the "hits" of yesteryear are only "hits" because that's what the listeners wanted to hear. I've contended often, as have many others in this forum, that those of us who like the basic sound of the music of the era this sub-forum focuses on like a hell of a lot more songs from that era than the ones manufactured into "hits" by shady practices of record labels, and that we also like newer recordings of music that has the same sonic feel as the music from that era. The music of that era is a specific sound, as unique and identifiable as Big Band "swing" music from the 40's. There is a wealth of such music out there that could become "hits" if it weren't for two different groups of people. The first are the people in the recording industry who exert pressure on broadcasters. The second are the radio industry professionals who have no imagination.

I don't see any long-term winners in that scenario, but there are more than a few losers. There are the artists who make outstanding "product" who can't get played on the air because of the short-sighted "professionals" who cling to the paradigms of the past, relying on poorly conducted research to support their decisions. There are the listeners denied access to entertainment they'd enjoy, again thanks to those same people. And in the long run, there's the entire over-the-air radio industry that refuses to see the truth because faulty metrics are telling them what they want to hear instead of relying on methods that tell them the unpleasant truths that they don't want to face.

 

[TheBigA]

Now, if anyone doubts that Federal prosecutors don't answer to the Attorney General, who is appointed by and answers to the President, who is absolutely an "elected official", or that Presidents don't have political advisors who influence every instruction the President gives to every Cabinet officer, they can borrow David's unicorn for a ride.

This is starting to fall into the conspiracy theory area, which is outside the area of discussion for this site. I suggest to give it a rest, or take it elsewhere.

With regards to the broadcast media, the federal government OWNS the channels of distribution. There are famous stories about Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon calling Bill Paley and David Sarnoff about their news coverage and threatened to take away their licenses. ABC quickly fired Alan Freed and forced Dick Clark to divest himself from any businesses that could cause a problem during the payola hearings. The REAL concern the government has regarding the media is the First Amendment. You don't seem to mention that at all here. But the government has no worries about threatening the media, and they do it all the time. You really have a lot to learn.

There are the artists who make outstanding "product" who can't get played on the air because of the short-sighted "professionals" who cling to the paradigms of the past, relying on poorly conducted research to support their decisions. There are the listeners denied access to entertainment they'd enjoy, again thanks to those same people. And in the long run, there's the entire over-the-air radio industry that refuses to see the truth because faulty metrics are telling them what they want to hear instead of relying on methods that tell them the unpleasant truths that they don't want to face.

Is there a law you can cite that broadcasters are breaking? Or is this more of your opinion?

Any artist who wants to reach listeners directly is free and able to do so by YouTube or trying out for one of many TV talent competitions. The broadcasting industry doesn't owe any singer free access to the airwaves, and there is no law that requires broadcasters to provide free airplay to any or all people who choose to describe themselves are either artists or musicians. The FCC rules clearly make broadcasters responsible for choosing what it plays on the radio. If you can find a law that we're breaking, I'd love to see it.

 

[davideduardo]

[

The thing is, if the government attacks any industry, it risks making enemies. I noted that I said "cooperation of the media". That is, the entire industry. That includes both those who own or control the channels of distribution and those who control the manufacture of content for the channels. Even if the big-three networks only owned 7 stations each, attack the industry and you've made an enemy of those companies.

But payola investigations, if warranted, end with prosecution of individuals who have broken a Federal law. This is not persecution of station owners, as the station owners have themselves been harmed by employees who took the specific types of bribes defined as payola.

And prosecution of a few lawbreakers who were stealing from their employer would actually help the licensee; the fear of prosecution helps the station owner avoid potentially dangerous situations.

Now, if anyone doubts that Federal prosecutors don't answer to the Attorney General, who is appointed by and answers to the President, who is absolutely an "elected official", or that Presidents don't have political advisors who influence every instruction the President gives to every Cabinet officer, they can borrow David's unicorn for a ride.

Payola was always a low-level crime, likely totally off the AG's radar. You are politicizing the equivalent of a purse snatching.

And the President, his advisors and his cabinet don't care how many times a day we play Eagles songs.

The thing is, the people who paid the bribes, after the statute of limitations expired, bragged about paying bribes.

Or, knowing record ducks, they vastly exaggerated what they did and, of course, their own importance. These are the same people who would say, "Help me with this song. I've gotta bring it home, or they said they would fire me".

They've got nothing to lose by telling the truth.

Record promoters, in their majority, were not specialists in truth telling. They have a vocabulary that is usually limited to the three words, "Play my record". They are specialists in hyperbole and that's why they are called "promoters" in the P.T. Barnum tradition.

But, the people who defend the radio broadcasting industry, the loyal "company men", will always jump to the defense of their industry.

In 55 years in the industry, including programming positions that included 6 of the top 10 markets, I only once met payola face to face, and it was 40 years ago outside the continental US. Sure, I heard rumors and accusations... but they involved people who were soon discredited and fired and not the stations they worked for.

Why is this important? It goes towards being the sort of "proof" so often demanded about the assertion that the "hits" of yesteryear are only "hits" because that's what the listeners wanted to hear. I've contended often, as have many others in this forum, that those of us who like the basic sound of the music of the era this sub-forum focuses on like a hell of a lot more songs from that era than the ones manufactured into "hits" by shady practices of record labels,

I have posted dozens of times about this, from a different perspective. A radio station can not make a stiff into a hit: listeners know a bad song when they hear it. But the record labels, by pushing out into the channels product that was later returned or not charged for, could inflate charts. Remember, charts in the 60's and 70's and into the 80's were sales based, not airplay based. So if charts were influenced... and they were... it was by record company movements of product through the distribution channels, not involving radio in any way.

I personally saw ample evidence at the retail level of "report sales of this song and I'll give you a box of this other song free" or dropping product into channels for free to get chart movement, knowing it would all come back as returns (particularly if the record company gave liberal return policies on that song or album). And I saw how charts could thus be manipulated by the record companies at the distribution and retail levels. But I did not see how alleged paid airplay helped, as airplay was not part of the charts.

and that we also like newer recordings of music that has the same sonic feel as the music from that era. The music of that era is a specific sound, as unique and identifiable as Big Band "swing" music from the 40's. There is a wealth of such music out there that could become "hits" if it weren't for two different groups of people. The first are the people in the recording industry who exert pressure on broadcasters. The second are the radio industry professionals who have no imagination.

The music industry exerts no pressure on broadcasters. And the radio industry knows that listeners to classic hits stations want to hear songs that bring back memories, not create new ones. If you had ever interviewed classic hits listeners (and I have been on personal interview sessions with hundreds and hundreds of them) you know that what drives the format is the "feel" of a time when "life was good". More than anything, they are mood stations and escape stations. New music, whatever it sounds like, may have the feel but it has no fit.

And it's been tried. Unsuccessfully.

 

[Avid Listener]

If you had ever interviewed classic hits listeners (and I have been on personal interview sessions with hundreds and hundreds of them) you know that what drives the format is the "feel" of a time when "life was good". More than anything, they are mood stations and escape stations. New music, whatever it sounds like, may have the feel but it has no fit.

And it's been tried. Unsuccessfully.

I am a classic hits listener! If you really understood the idea of a "feel" of a time, you'd know that an important aspect of the "feel" of that time was the excitement of hearing a song for the first time that sounded as good as the other songs you really liked. I'll wager that if you interviewed people the way you participate in here, if anyone told you that, you'd simply "correct" them and ignore what they told you. Or, your "interview" would be a list of multiple choice questions with numerically calculable answers, but little or no provision for getting into the heart of the matter. I've been in the "interviewee" side of those sessions far to often to believe their worth more than a bucket of warm spit.

 

[davideduardo]

I am a classic hits listener! If you really understood the idea of a "feel" of a time, you'd know that an important aspect of the "feel" of that time was the excitement of hearing a song for the first time that sounded as good as the other songs you really liked. I'll wager that if you interviewed people the way you participate in here, if anyone told you that, you'd simply "correct" them and ignore what they told you. Or, your "interview" would be a list of multiple choice questions with numerically calculable answers, but little or no provision for getting into the heart of the matter. I've been in the "interviewee" side of those sessions far to often to believe their worth more than a bucket of warm spit.

Perceptual research, particularly one on ones, are totally improvised within a framework. The idea is to get feelings and impressions that serve as keys to why stations are liked or disliked, used or not so used, etc.

An example of one of the interviews I was most impressed by was in a project for the Oldies station in Washington, DC, some years back. In speaking to a late-40-ish respondent, I found that she was in a dead-end job at the DoJ filing briefs and papers in a sub-basement. Her children, grown, were often an annoyance and her husband was not communicative. The one happy time of her life was her high school years. She had fun, she dated, went to dances had friends and no cares. The soundtrack to her happiness was WEAM and, later, WPGC. The songs that were the big hits had memories: homecoming, a date, a party, the summer at the beach, a boyfriend. When played, after the background part of the interview (which took 40 minutes) a recording of mass appeal big hits, she pegged her response dial at 100 the whole time. When a tape with lower charting songs was scored negatively, she said, "there are no memories attached to those songs".

While music discovery is important for current hit-driven stations, it has no part in gold based stations. It destroys the mood, the flow, the feel, the fit and the ratings.

I program classic hits every day. You are just guessing and wishing. The problem with your guesses and wishes is that they don't work... they have been tried... and they result in career disasters for PDs and ratings disasters for stations. I've been there. And I've seen it happen even more times... recently, a decade ago, two decades ago... five decades ago.

 

[oldies76]

A radio station can not make a stiff into a hit: listeners know a bad song when they hear it. But the record labels, by pushing out into the channels product that was later returned or not charged for, could inflate charts. Remember, charts in the 60's and 70's and into the 80's were sales based, not airplay based. So if charts were influenced... and they were... it was by record company movements of product through the distribution channels, not involving radio in any way.

But DE, not all "stiffs" are bad. You are making it sound that way and essentially assuming that they are, just because classic hits radio supposedly labeled them so.

So let me ask you this: Is "Don't Stop the Music" by Yarboroughs and Peoples a stiff? I never hear it anywhere, but yet, it's a good song. How about "Trouble" by Lindsey Buckingham?

 

[Avid Listener]

An example of one of the interviews I was most impressed by was in a project for the Oldies station in Washington, DC, some years back. In speaking to a late-40-ish respondent, I found that she was in a dead-end job at the DoJ filing briefs and papers in a sub-basement. Her children, grown, were often an annoyance and her husband was not communicative. The one happy time of her life was her high school years. She had fun, she dated, went to dances had friends and no cares. The soundtrack to her happiness was WEAM and, later, WPGC. The songs that were the big hits had memories: homecoming, a date, a party, the summer at the beach, a boyfriend. When played, after the background part of the interview (which took 40 minutes) a recording of mass appeal big hits, she pegged her response dial at 100 the whole time. When a tape with lower charting songs was scored negatively, she said, "there are no memories attached to those songs".

While music discovery is important for current hit-driven stations, it has no part in gold based stations. It destroys the mood, the flow, the feel, the f

And I could rattle of dozens of similar anecdotes about people whose memories of years past is waiting with eager anticipation for hearing new songs. I can tell you of people who regarded as hearing a great sounding song that they never heard before as some of the best memories of their lives.

And what would make an advertiser feel like that woman you mentioned wouldn't also want to stick to her old favorite brand names, with memories attached, and wouldn't ever want to switch to a new product, no matter how many commercials she heard?

 

[Avid Listener]

But DE, not all "stiffs" are bad. You are making it sound that way and essentially assuming that they are, just because classic hits radio supposedly labeled them so.

So let me ask you this: Is "Don't Stop the Music" by Yarboroughs and Peoples a stiff? I never hear it anywhere, but yet, it's a good song. How about "Trouble" by Lindsey Buckingham?

Don't you just love the absolutist binary logic of the "only the hits" playlist defenders? Every song from yesteryear is either a beloved hit or hated stiff. There's never an in-between.

 

[oldies76]

Don't you just love the absolutist binary logic of the "only the hits" playlist defenders? Every song from yesteryear is either a beloved hit or hated stiff. There's never an in-between.

Most of the hits from the past are beloved, only a select few are disliked. Every song that charted reasonably well are hits. If radio does not think so, then that's their issue....and the listeners loss.

Funny, I called up a local small market radio station about 10 days ago (KFEZ 101.3), which has a morning request show...and this DJ usually plays your request within 10 minutes. I actually mentioned about how KFEZ plays music that no one else does and the fact that many listeners (including myself) are tired of the same ole on mainstream stations...and guess what....he agreed with me and glad that I had "caught on". Heck, if the employees actually agree....then there's some light at the end of the tunnel.

Btw, I requested "Send One You Love" by Stevie Wonder, a HIT big cities ignore.

See, there are stations that cater to music fans and the memories they're looking for on the FM dial. They're out there, believe me.

 

[davideduardo]

Don't you just love the absolutist binary logic of the "only the hits" playlist defenders? Every song from yesteryear is either a beloved hit or hated stiff. There's never an in-between.

"Neutral" means "I don't care... I don't love the song and I don't hate it". How many listeners do you suppose will come to a station for a bunch of songs they don't "like" or "love" and simply "tolerate"? No passion, no tune in.

The objective in programming is to play song that a consensus of listeners really want to hear on the radio today. That means that negative songs and ones that have no passion will not get played. The only concept that gets ratings is to play songs that "everyone" enjoys hearing, not songs they they will "put up with hearing".

An ancillary issue is that the more neutral songs you play, the fewer songs with passion you can put in every hour.

 

[davideduardo]

Most of the hits from the past are beloved, only a select few are disliked. Every song that charted reasonably well are hits. If radio does not think so, then that's their issue....and the listeners loss.

That's wrong. When it comes to listening to the radio today, only a small percentage of songs from any era achieve positive acceptance. Most are at best neutral and at worst, vehemently hated.

Funny, I called up a local small market radio station about 10 days ago (KFEZ 101.3), which has a morning request show...and this DJ usually plays your request within 10 minutes. I actually mentioned about how KFEZ plays music that no one else does and the fact that many listeners (including myself) are tired of the same ole on mainstream stations...and guess what....he agreed with me and glad that I had "caught on". Heck, if the employees actually agree....then there's some light at the end of the tunnel.

DJs often complain about repetition. They are insiders, and have to hear, at high volume, all the songs over and over. Where you hear this most is in CHR stations, which, of course, thrive with 100 song or less playlists.

 

[TheBigA]

And I could rattle of dozens of similar anecdotes about people whose memories of years past is waiting with eager anticipation for hearing new songs. I can tell you of people who regarded as hearing a great sounding song that they never heard before as some of the best memories of their lives.

Radio is not in the "dozens of people" business. Radio isn't about reaching individuals and serving their specific interests, but rather finding the commonality among larger groups. So all of these individual stories about individual songs are completely irrelevant to the discussion. As I've said many times before, individual preferences are best handled through personal music devices. There are lots of them on the market, and our research tells me that most people understand that.

I actually mentioned about how KFEZ plays music that no one else does and the fact that many listeners (including myself) are tired of the same ole on mainstream stations...and guess what....he agreed with me and glad that I had "caught on". Heck, if the employees actually agree....then there's some light at the end of the tunnel.

Until that DJ gets promoted to management, his opinions will have no effect. The DJ is not responsible for delivering audience to advertisers. That's his boss's job. If the boss misses his numbers because a DJ plays some other music, that DJ could get fired. He'll certainly have to explain his actions. And that's typical for people in any job. There's the famous story about McDonald's employees eating at other places because the food at their workplace wasn't healthy.

See, there are stations that cater to music fans and the memories they're looking for on the FM dial. They're out there, believe me.

I don't think any of us are saying no one does what you like. We're saying the pressures of running a station in a small market are different. They've obviously figured out how to cover their expenses with mainly local advertising.

And obviously those stations stream, and you listen as an out of towner. Your behavior is not counted in their ratings, nor does it make them any money. So you're a basically a freeloader whose entertainment is paid for by someone else.

 

[Tibbs4]

The biggest issue on here that just keeps getting missed is that NO two people have the same musical experiences or life experiences, so no two personal playlists would be the same. I don't see why this seems to be such a fight, except that there is a percentage of people that just can't see that radio cannot revolve around their own design. And if one person did get to pick all of his or her favorites, everyone in the 'all about me group' would be just as upset about that playlist vs. what is being played on stations now. I was born in 1962. My list of favorites would be completely different from a person born in 1959. Radio HAS to bridge all of that together and try to play songs that will keep listeners tuned in as much as possible. It is almost impossible to ever really get this right. Playing to the masses is what keeps the format on the air. Believe me, it is NOT like anyone on this board doesn't get your plea for unique playlists and obscure or lesser played songs from the past. It's just that is a format for failure or firing. Radio has to be as many things to as many people as possible, without running everyone off. And for EVERY song that one person loves, there is one hater. It's a hell of a challenge . Sirius/XM can play more obscure songs, but look at their overall number of subscribers. As for the comment about playing a request within 10 minutes. What happens if you get ten requests within five minutes? That means this station must not be getting many requests. And, finally, most people on the air that are actually live and local and have to sit through hours of music each day will always be the first to get burned out on the music. How could they not? But, they know listeners catch a fraction of the music on stations. It is nothing new. All the jocks from decades ago said the same dang thing. And programmers don't exactly love everything they program, either. But, if you DON'T play the hits, you don't usually get to keep your job because the ratings and revenue ain't there. Like David said, the best thing a station can do is program an unknown playlist - IF it is your best competitor. It doesn't mean there are two factions on here. It's just what the job description requires in 2014. Playing it to safe? Probably. Being able to play vs. collecting unemployment or signing your station off the air? Absolutely.

 

[Robert Bass]

Just for fun, let's review how Lindsay Buckingham's song "Trouble" does, on my Internet station. Please note that yes I am fully aware my Net only station reaches a smaller audience than an OTA station does. With that said...

In the past 30 days, Trouble has been heard by 2,277 listeners. 13 of those listeners tuned out during the song, for a loss rate of 0.50%. WHY they tuned out is not known. It could be they hated the song, they had to stop the stream to make a phone call, they left their office at the end of the work day, etc...

R

 

[davideduardo]

I don't see why this seems to be such a fight, except that there is a percentage of people that just can't see that radio cannot revolve around their own design.

Bingo! Thank you for a nice and well reasoned post.