Which is the bigger "tune out" factor?

[oldies76]

Singles sales peaked in 1974 and fell fast from there. They were largely irrelevant without folding in corresponding album sales by the late 70s. In the 80s and 90s they were a promotional tool for album sales, period. And since albums had a longer sales life, and since labels were dealing with artists who might only have a new album every three to five years, it was in the labels' best interest to keep radio focused on the most commercial track for as long as possible. And radio discovered (through music tests) that their target audience didn't burn as quickly as previous generations.

It wasn't until iTunes brought back the ability to buy one song at a time (which the record industry fought Steve Jobs over tooth and nail...they still wanted to sell entire albums) that the concept of a single had real meaning again.

I believe you forgot the main method of buying singles in the late 80's and through the 90's, the CD single. And remember, one could still buy 45's through the 90's, although very hard to find in places, especially toward the second half of the decade. But yes, as the 90's progressed, single sales plummeted to the point that some chart singles were not released as singles....ie.. No Doubt's "Don't Speak" and others.

 

[davideduardo]

I believe you forgot the main method of buying singles in the late 80's and through the 90's, the CD single.

The record industry would like to forget the CD single. Despite the best efforts of the brick and mortar stores and the record ducks, the critters did not sell... in fact, they did not even achieve what was the main intent of the CD single, which was to get traffic into the record stores where, hopefully, an album or two would be purchased.

 

[michael hagerty]

Singles sales peaked in 1974 and fell fast from there. They were largely irrelevant without folding in corresponding album sales by the late 70s. In the 80s and 90s they were a promotional tool for album sales, period. And since albums had a longer sales life, and since labels were dealing with artists who might only have a new album every three to five years, it was in the labels' best interest to keep radio focused on the most commercial track for as long as possible. And radio discovered (through music tests) that their target audience didn't burn as quickly as previous generations.

It wasn't until iTunes brought back the ability to buy one song at a time (which the record industry fought Steve Jobs over tooth and nail...they still wanted to sell entire albums) that the concept of a single had real meaning again.

I believe you forgot the main method of buying singles in the late 80's and through the 90's, the CD single. And remember, one could still buy 45's through the 90's, although very hard to find in places, especially toward the second half of the decade. But yes, as the 90's progressed, single sales plummeted to the point that some chart singles were not released as singles....ie.. No Doubt's "Don't Speak" and others.

CD singles never sold well, and once the curiosity buys subsided, dropped like a rock.

Again, single sales peaked in 1974. Everything after that was downhill and estimating the popularity of songs without including album sales after 1977 gives you an extremely flawed picture (and then you have to keep in mind the grain of salt with which to take all pre-Soundscan charts).

 

[firepoint525]

First, we need to do a lot better than "someone mentioned" to know whether Hootie tests poorly or not.
Second, as David mentioned, people of the age that might appreciate Hootie more are just moving into the critical part of the demo. If Hootie tests poorly, the results could improve with time.
Third, Hootie and the Blowfish released three albums in the entire decade of the 90s and had three top 10 singles. Basing whether 90s music will work on how they test would be like making a decision on whether to play 70s music based on Hamilton, Joe Frank and Reynolds.

Actually, it was CT Listener who mentioned Hootie on the feedback requested thread (I think). And Darius Rucker is now a successful country singer. So I believe he has actually proved the late-night comics wrong!

Aside from that, I don't have the $$$$ to conduct "tests." Nor do I have the desire to. Once the '90s take over whatever passes for "classic hits radio" by that time, you can color me GONE! I'm still "only" 49, but you and David have ALREADY written people like me off. Don't bother waiting until I'm 55. : And don't delude yourselves into thinking otherwise. None of this would annoy me if I were ALREADY 55, but I'm not.

Additionally, 20- and 30-somethings are (apparently) MUCH less loyal to radio than we were. We indeed had our favorite stations to which we were FIERCELY loyal. We LOVED certain radio stations, and (shock, shock) they actually LOVED US BACK! We wore t-shirts for our favorite stations. We had their bumper stickers on our cars. And it wasn't even to try to win contests. Now stations have a different format every week. Or so it seems. I have a few station t-shirts. And t-shirts from stations that sponsored 5K races. But the station logos on the backs of those shirts are from THREE FORMATS AGO! (As a (former) runner, I am glad that radio stations were among the sponsors of races, but I digress.) I collect radio station memorabilia. And have since 1987. I have scanned and posted quite a bit of this stuff online. I am fairly certain that the stations who change formats every week wish I would go away. But I post this stuff to remind people of some of the formats to which stations didn't stay for very long.

I don't blame 20-somethings and 30-somethings for being less loyal to radio. Radio (and this includes stations aimed at them!) SUCKS now! They are much more loyal to their own Ipods. And I can't really say that I blame them.

For all the "testing" that stations do now, you would think that they would be able to keep a format for a longer period of time than they do.

Once the '90s become the "dominant" decade for "classic hits," there will be more sports/talk stations on the air. Fans of the '90s music won't want to hear the sanitized or edited versions of raps that stations will be forced to play. And they WON'T be able to program to a generation that (unlike us) was never really all that loyal to radio to begin with.

 

[firepoint525]

I believe you forgot the main method of buying singles in the late 80's and through the 90's, the CD single. And remember, one could still buy 45's through the 90's, although very hard to find in places, especially toward the second half of the decade. But yes, as the 90's progressed, single sales plummeted to the point that some chart singles were not released as singles....ie.. No Doubt's "Don't Speak" and others.

I won't argue against the reasons that Michael and David gave you against CD singles (take note, Michael and David!), but I will offer you an even better reason why they didn't catch on...COST! CD singles cost between $3 and $5, and they took up as much space on your shelf as a full-length CD. For kids with limited allowances, that was a bit much. Better value to just go ahead and buy the full-length CD. On the upside, CD singles tended to contain about 3-5 songs on them, so I suppose that they were worth the money, but again, the kids either couldn't afford them, or they went ahead and bought the full album.

But if you still have any CD singles, some of them just MIGHT be collectors items now. It's always nice to have the last laugh on these greedy record companies, isn't it?

 

[firepoint525]

I don't think it's manipulation. Starting in '92 (I believe, might be off a year or so) Billboard started using Soundscan data, which was a big change in their methodology.
Also, by the 90's, corporate giants had certainly begun to emerge in radio. Therefore, limited, repetitive playlists only got worse. The charts remain mostly the same today, where songs rack up endless weeks at #1. There is much less exposure for new acts trying to break out. Instead, the music industy has become bent on focusing only on particular acts --- meaning the days of walking into a local station and giving them your band's record are over. The artists these days have to make it first, for a promise of airplay. Radio doesn't break out acts in the same way they used to. This would all add up to (in my opinion) a smaller pool of artists, and a smaller pool of songs.

It's going to be fun when they have to start testing '90s music! As we have learned from our own generation, not everything from the '90s will "test" well. And since they already have a limited pool of '90s music to begin with, it will be only further limited by "testing." Should be fun watching radio programmers try to squirm out of this one!

You are right about Soundscan taking over. It actually took over the week of my 28th birthday (November, 1991, just in time for the '92 chart year). Supposedly, it made for more accurate chart data. But I STILL think that LeeAnn Rimes' version of "How Do I Live" was manipulated. She got absolutely CLOBBERED in head-to-head competitions with Trisha Yearwood's version on the country charts. So LeeAnn's "handlers" sent it to pop radio, where it became a hit without Yearwood's competing version. I really believe that her handlers had a hand in keeping it on the charts for so long. Only Elton John's "Candle in the Wind '97" tribute to Princess Diana kept it out of #1. And nothing else by Rimes even came close to matching its track record on the pop charts.

 

[CTListener]

I think your NPR idea has a lot going for it. They've done a great job with Classical, Jazz and Blues.

I hear oldies shows on block-programmed noncommercial stations. WPKN Bridgeport has (or had; I haven't tuned in for a while) a weekly Motown show. I've also heard '50s and '60s oldies on a couple of the college stations in the Hartford area. But again, these are just weekly shows among a bunch of unrelated shows. Maybe with '50s and '60s music being squeezed off commercial radio -- with the '70s to follow before long -- oldies will become a viable format for noncomms. But there's a problem with that, too. Talk seems to generate more listener donations than any genre of music does -- jazz fans are notorious for keeping their wallets zipped tight during fundraising time -- so noncomms don't flip from classical or jazz or block programming to oldies, they flip to liberal talk instead. Would oldies listeners be willing to pay?

Is classic rock "aging out" its veteran acts, too? I don't listen to WPLR or WAQY for extended periods, but I do listen to Sirius XM's Deep Tracks, which still focuses on '60s through '80s with no apparent squeezing out of '60s acts like Janis Joplin, the Doors and Jefferson Airplane from the playlist. If the "dinosaurs" of classic rock are being tossed aside on commercial radio, maybe that might be the next format for noncomms to tackle.

 

[michael hagerty]

First, we need to do a lot better than "someone mentioned" to know whether Hootie tests poorly or not.
Second, as David mentioned, people of the age that might appreciate Hootie more are just moving into the critical part of the demo. If Hootie tests poorly, the results could improve with time.
Third, Hootie and the Blowfish released three albums in the entire decade of the 90s and had three top 10 singles. Basing whether 90s music will work on how they test would be like making a decision on whether to play 70s music based on Hamilton, Joe Frank and Reynolds.

Actually, it was CT Listener who mentioned Hootie on the feedback requested thread (I think). And Darius Rucker is now a successful country singer. So I believe he has actually proved the late-night comics wrong!

Aside from that, I don't have the $$$$ to conduct "tests." Nor do I have the desire to. Once the '90s take over whatever passes for "classic hits radio" by that time, you can color me GONE! I'm still "only" 49, but you and David have ALREADY written people like me off. Don't bother waiting until I'm 55. : And don't delude yourselves into thinking otherwise. None of this would annoy me if I were ALREADY 55, but I'm not.

Additionally, 20- and 30-somethings are (apparently) MUCH less loyal to radio than we were. We indeed had our favorite stations to which we were FIERCELY loyal. We LOVED certain radio stations, and (shock, shock) they actually LOVED US BACK! We wore t-shirts for our favorite stations. We had their bumper stickers on our cars. And it wasn't even to try to win contests. Now stations have a different format every week. Or so it seems. I have a few station t-shirts. And t-shirts from stations that sponsored 5K races. But the station logos on the backs of those shirts are from THREE FORMATS AGO! (As a (former) runner, I am glad that radio stations were among the sponsors of races, but I digress.) I collect radio station memorabilia. And have since 1987. I have scanned and posted quite a bit of this stuff online. I am fairly certain that the stations who change formats every week wish I would go away. But I post this stuff to remind people of some of the formats to which stations didn't stay for very long.

I don't blame 20-somethings and 30-somethings for being less loyal to radio. Radio (and this includes stations aimed at them!) SUCKS now! They are much more loyal to their own Ipods. And I can't really say that I blame them.

For all the "testing" that stations do now, you would think that they would be able to keep a format for a longer period of time than they do.

Once the '90s become the "dominant" decade for "classic hits," there will be more sports/talk stations on the air. Fans of the '90s music won't want to hear the sanitized or edited versions of raps that stations will be forced to play. And they WON'T be able to program to a generation that (unlike us) was never really all that loyal to radio to begin with.

Firepoint, no one is suggesting you conduct tests. That would be redundant. They're already being done. I just wanted to make the point that you can't judge the viability of a decade worth of music on one person's opinion of one band that had three hits.

David and I aren't writing you off. Hell, right now Classic Hits is playing music too old for you. All I'm saying is don't think the format won't change and survive. It's not going to end when the last Boomer ages out of the demo. It's already adding 80s tracks. 90s will follow.

As for previous generations' loyalty to their radio stations:

KFWB was the #1 Top 40 in Los Angeles for five years. It only survived 10 years in format. The station that replaced it as #1, only stayed #1 for two years and only stayed in the format for 10 years. KHJ had 14 years as the #1 Top 40 and 15 years in format.

KIIS-FM has been the leading CHR in Los Angeles for 31 years. KPWR has been the leading rhythmic CHR for 27 years. KROQ has been the leading modern/alternative rock station for 34 years. KRTH's been oldies (this time) since 1986.

You don't rack up runs like that without audience loyalty.

 

[firepoint525]

David and I aren't writing you off. Hell, right now Classic Hits is playing music too old for you. All I'm saying is don't think the format won't change and survive. It's not going to end when the last Boomer ages out of the demo. It's already adding 80s tracks. 90s will follow.
As for previous generations' loyalty to their radio stations:
KFWB was the #1 Top 40 in Los Angeles for five years. It only survived 10 years in format. The station that replaced it as #1, only stayed #1 for two years and only stayed in the format for 10 years. KHJ had 14 years as the #1 Top 40 and 15 years in format.
KIIS-FM has been the leading CHR in Los Angeles for 31 years. KPWR has been the leading rhythmic CHR for 27 years. KROQ has been the leading modern/alternative rock station for 34 years. KRTH's been oldies (this time) since 1986.
You don't rack up runs like that without audience loyalty.

Good response. There are stations here in Nashville which have had five formats in five years! And it seemed like they didn't settle on a format until they went to sports. After which time, I (of course) wrote them off.

Isn't "classic hits" '80s-centered now? I like '80s music, but I was in my 20s for most of the '80s.

 

[michael hagerty]

David and I aren't writing you off. Hell, right now Classic Hits is playing music too old for you. All I'm saying is don't think the format won't change and survive. It's not going to end when the last Boomer ages out of the demo. It's already adding 80s tracks. 90s will follow.
As for previous generations' loyalty to their radio stations:
KFWB was the #1 Top 40 in Los Angeles for five years. It only survived 10 years in format. The station that replaced it as #1, only stayed #1 for two years and only stayed in the format for 10 years. KHJ had 14 years as the #1 Top 40 and 15 years in format.
KIIS-FM has been the leading CHR in Los Angeles for 31 years. KPWR has been the leading rhythmic CHR for 27 years. KROQ has been the leading modern/alternative rock station for 34 years. KRTH's been oldies (this time) since 1986.
You don't rack up runs like that without audience loyalty.

Good response. There are stations here in Nashville which have had five formats in five years! And it seemed like they didn't settle on a format until they went to sports. After which time, I (of course) wrote them off.

Isn't "classic hits" '80s-centered now? I like '80s music, but I was in my 20s for most of the '80s.

Well, not in most places, but knowing you're in Nashville, I Googled the Classic Hits station there and checked their online playlist. They're not playing anything older than 1979. Here's the link to their music log:

http://www.yes.com/#WRQQ?log

In most cities, Classic Hits is 70s centered. Maybe 2 songs an hour from the 60s, 3 from the 80s and 7 or 8 from the 70s.

 

[landtuna]

Well, not in most places, but knowing you're in Nashville, I Googled the Classic Hits station there and checked their online playlist. They're not playing anything older than 1979.

"Aging out" works both ways. I may not be attractive to advertisers any longer (although Hyundai found a way to sell me two new cars from a manufacturer I'd never purchased from before - but not on radio) but a station that does not play pre-1979 hits is not on my pre-set either. And I have a ton more discretionary income than do virtually all in-demo people.

Can't sell me? I submit it is the advertisers fault and not the demo stereotypes.

 

[Tom Wells]

Last Friday night the family and I went out to dinner at an old, old pizza joint/tap room nearby.
They have live music on weekend nights, and this night they had a jazz trio.
Alto Sax, big wooden bass, and a keyboard. They were really good.
After some initial squirming from my almost-9-year old and a very brief opinion of "I hate jazz", she quickly modified it to a much less divisive opinion and just listened and enjoyed.
Shortly into the next song, she realized she knew the song.
I helped her, and said, "Yes you really do know this song, it's 'Call Me" and you know the Chris Montez vocal version from 1965."

It's real easy to train a dog to like Purina Dog Chow, and it will test well on most dogs. (well tested, tests well)

But they still prefer almost any human food. ( variety, surprise )

If radio trains listeners to tie on mental blinders, regardless of music type/format, then the scientific method employed is only there to re-enforce whatever is the prevaling business opinion.

 

[michael hagerty]

Last Friday night the family and I went out to dinner at an old, old pizza joint/tap room nearby.
They have live music on weekend nights, and this night they had a jazz trio.
Alto Sax, big wooden bass, and a keyboard. They were really good.
After some initial squirming from my almost-9-year old and a very brief opinion of "I hate jazz", she quickly modified it to a much less divisive opinion and just listened and enjoyed.
Shortly into the next song, she realized she knew the song.
I helped her, and said, "Yes you really do know this song, it's 'Call Me" and you know the Chris Montez vocal version from 1965."

It's real easy to train a dog to like Purina Dog Chow, and it will test well on most dogs. (well tested, tests well)

But they still prefer almost any human food. ( variety, surprise )

If radio trains listeners to tie on mental blinders, regardless of music type/format, then the scientific method employed is only there to re-enforce whatever is the prevaling business opinion.

True to an extent, Tom, but let's pretend the pizza joint had 38 rooms with bands playing 38 different kinds of music. Do you think your 9 year old would be sitting through "Call Me" if a band playing a kind of music she liked...maybe even her favorite song...was in a room a few steps away?

It's even easier to change stations.

The only way to "educate" the audience as described above is if all the other radio stations do the same instead of..you know, giving the audience what it wants when it wants it (which is all the time). And they won't. And even if they did, it wouldn't work with so many alternate outlets for entertainment.

 

[firepoint525]

Well, not in most places, but knowing you're in Nashville, I Googled the Classic Hits station there and checked their online playlist. They're not playing anything older than 1979. Here's the link to their music log:
http://www.yes.com/#WRQQ?log
In most cities, Classic Hits is 70s centered. Maybe 2 songs an hour from the 60s, 3 from the 80s and 7 or 8 from the 70s.

We lost them about six months ago, when Cumulus sold them to K-Love after acquiring Citadel because they would have owned too many stations here. When we had them, they played music as recent as 1989. But they played '60s and '70s as well. Still, their playlist was pretty thin. And very predictable.

My tastes probably skew a LITTLE old for my age, but I don't think extremely so. I grew up with a top 40 (AM, of course) that played '50s to '70s. A higher percentage of oldies on the weekends ("solid gold weekends"), save for American Top 40 on Sunday afternoons.

 

[Tom Wells]

The only way to "educate" the audience as described above is if all the other radio stations do the same instead of..you know, giving the audience what it wants when it wants it (which is all the time). And they won't. And even if they did, it wouldn't work with so many alternate outlets for entertainment.

Then everyone will "excel" by doing the same thing as everyone else, because that's the only way our metrics assure us we can pay the bills?

OK, the bills are paid and the product is wanting something.....
whatcha got "new OR old", that will make people listen MORE actively?

Destroying or denying the element of randomness is bad enough,
a conscious decision to never let it occur is dehumanizing.

 

[firepoint525]

Can't sell me? I submit it is the advertisers fault and not the demo stereotypes.

I can't help but think that advertisers are branching out FAR beyond radio. There's television, the internet, newspapers, magazines, the sides of buses, you name it. This is not news to anyone of course, but I can't help but think that radio (at this point) needs advertisers more than advertisers need radio. :'( Sad, but true.

 

[landtuna]

Can't sell me? I submit it is the advertisers fault and not the demo stereotypes.

I can't help but think that advertisers are branching out FAR beyond radio. There's television, the internet, newspapers, magazines, the sides of buses, you name it. This is not news to anyone of course, but I can't help but think that radio (at this point) needs advertisers more than advertisers need radio. :'( Sad, but true.

You are correct of course but the major influence on my buying life is the ability to find others who have bought and read their experiences. In the past there were mags like Car and Driver (for example) that did road tests and detailed write-up's of potential purchases. They were almost never timely though in that they tested cars not available to the public yet, exotic or specialty cars, or "interesting" vehicles for "car people".

Now days I can find forums on almost every kind of car out there as well as half a dozen well known blogespheres where cars are rated by professional raters. I can narrow the field before I even visit a car lot. Neither radio nor TV can give me that advantage. Newspapers and magazines only partly. Therefore, radio did not help me in my two recent major purchases and I wouldn't even consider listening before my next one.

Unfortunately, there is nothing being advertised on music radio these days that I am interested in buying. It isn't my age, it's the advertisers. They don't see me as a potential customer so they ignore me - and force me to go elsewhere. Although I may be more set in my buying habits than a 25-year old (call it "experience") I still spend money, look for deals and haven't died yet. For radio advertisers to completely abandon me (except for a few Oldies outlets) is business folly. My cost-of-advertising may be incrementally higher than the youngsters but it still makes sense to sell to me.

And yes, I fully realize I am wealthier than the average retiree my age, but as I drive past those casino parking lots full of my peers I am reminded that they still spend money too - perhaps just at different places.

 

[michael hagerty]

The only way to "educate" the audience as described above is if all the other radio stations do the same instead of..you know, giving the audience what it wants when it wants it (which is all the time). And they won't. And even if they did, it wouldn't work with so many alternate outlets for entertainment.

Then everyone will "excel" by doing the same thing as everyone else, because that's the only way our metrics assure us we can pay the bills?

OK, the bills are paid and the product is wanting something.....
whatcha got "new OR old", that will make people listen MORE actively?

Destroying or denying the element of randomness is bad enough,
a conscious decision to never let it occur is dehumanizing.

Tom:

I get it, but how do you determine what will make them listen more actively? Trial and error's out. The competition will eat your lunch and if you're a publicly traded company, you have a fiduciary responsibility to your stockholders not to be reckless with their investment.

 

[Oldbones]

It's real easy to train a dog to like Purina Dog Chow, and it will test well on most dogs. (well tested, tests well)

But they still prefer almost any human food. ( variety, surprise )

??? huh? ???
I don't get the analogy here.
Dogs aren't particularly discerning about what they'll eat. I've seen them eat their own puke, as well as raid the cat box. Nothing I'd want to eat.

 

[allenv]

When you have to please shareholders comes into play in decision making in radio there lies a major problem with radio today. I know its the way it is but it doesn't make it right. Certainly we live in challenging economic times but the basic math of what it costs to run a station has been the same formula for years..Ownwership has chosen to phase out live people and be copycats musically for the most part but how many are taking that money their saving and reinvesting it in equipment or promotions?? People are tuning out in part because radio is giving them less & less to tune in for.. I'm not bitter towards radio I still love it and work in it but we have got to remember whether its 1973 or 2013 a large amount of listeners still enjoy a relationship with the jock playing the tunes they love and when they know no one is there to take their calls or give them up to date info or interact with them in any way they tune out and some don't come back. Robot radio is a big tuneout factor.