Which is the bigger "tune out" factor?

[landtuna]

I would agree with you if the stopsets were similar in length to those of 30 years ago. Today the stopset can be expected to approach 5-6 minutes. For me and a ton of others that is a mandatory push of the pre-set.

While logic would seem to validate your point, reality contradicts it.

http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Arbitron/What Happens When The Spots Come On.pdf

The tune out for a really bad song is much more severe.

Unlike commercials there is a lot of variety in like/dislike of songs so what constitutes a "really bad song" and how does that differ from a "not so bad song" etc.? But putting that esoteric comparison aside for the moment.....

The report uses an average of 9 minutes of commercial time per hour. My experience on two stations in my market is more than that. I submit the stopset is more like 5-6 minutes each and that are at least three of them per hour.

It matters if people are listening in a car or at work. If in a car they are much more likely to hit the pre-set than if at work and are listening only casually. Also, you cannot tell if the listener is actually listening to their radio or not. All you can determine is that the radio was playing and the meter was within earshot.

One item completely lacking in the report was retention. When the average station plays half a dozen commercials back to back what is the retention by "listeners"? Common sense and personal experience tell me it is practically nil.

This report was produced by a company whose very existence depends upon the sale of commercials. I would be much more willing to concede the point if the survey was performed by a third party without a vested interest in the outcome.

 

[davideduardo]

This report was produced by a company whose very existence depends upon the sale of commercials. I would be much more willing to concede the point if the survey was performed by a third party without a vested interest in the outcome.

All the report did was quantify the loss of audience during commercial breaks by people who already were participating in PPM panels. There is no interpretation involved, and thus no opportunity for bias; at any finite point in the listening by any individual, they either stay with a station, change station or turn off the radio. The tabulating of these responses for many people over a period of time created the results. It's pure quantitative tabulation and not even quantitative analysis.

As Joe Friday would have said, "Just the facts, Ma'am".

What is interesting is that any station staffer can take MediaMonitor data and perform the same analysis and get the same result for any station in any market.

Ad media does not sell "attention" but "impressions". Just as ABC data can tell how many guaranteed copies of a newspaper were distributed, ratings tell how many people were tuned to a channel or radio station in a given period of time. They can not tell whether anyone paid attention to the ads.

Ads that get paid attention to have to offer something of interest to a consumer. If I would never buy a pickup truck, no ad for such a vehicle will get my attention; those ads are invisible and inaudible to me. If I'm in the market for a pickup, but the dealer advertised is inconveniently located, I have no interest. And so on.

It's mostly the advertiser's responsibility to tailor the message, not that of the medium. Think of billboards: if I am on a long drive and get hungry, I will notice the restaurant boards... but if I am not hungry, they are, again, invisible.

As to "bad songs" those in stations know with great precision which songs are bad. And we can quantify the exact listener reaction to very bad songs and we can also discover rather quickly when a good song turns bad and cull it from the herd.

Again, listeners know radio stations have commercials. And they have pretty much figured out that all stations in a market have about the same number. So, there is nothing in the way of a let-down when the ads come on. But they expect their favorite stations to play songs they like... but when they don't, it is not expected and is tantamount to fraud: "you promised me songs I like and you played this one that sucks big time".

 

[landtuna]

It's mostly the advertiser's responsibility to tailor the message, not that of the medium. Think of billboards: if I am on a long drive and get hungry, I will notice the restaurant boards... but if I am not hungry, they are, again, invisible.

Which reminds me of the most effective (in terms of retention) billboards I ever saw: Burma Shave. They used to have poems/limericks on signs along our highways. Each sign would have one line and they were spaced about 1/4 mile apart. Although I was a bit young at the time to be aware of what the product was I was able to recite many of them by heart.

Now THAT is effective advertising. Except that, to this day, I've never bought a can of Burma Shave.

 

[Tom Wells]

It's mostly the advertiser's responsibility to tailor the message, not that of the medium. Think of billboards: if I am on a long drive and get hungry, I will notice the restaurant boards... but if I am not hungry, they are, again, invisible.

Which reminds me of the most effective (in terms of retention) billboards I ever saw: Burma Shave. They used to have poems/limericks on signs along our highways. Each sign would have one line and they were spaced about 1/4 mile apart. Although I was a bit young at the time to be aware of what the product was I was able to recite many of them by heart.

Now THAT is effective advertising. Except that, to this day, I've never bought a can of Burma Shave.

Burma Shave is cake shaving soap that you use a bristle brush and hot water to make a lather.

I can't remember ever seeing Burma Shave in cans.

 

[landtuna]

Burma Shave is cake shaving soap that you use a bristle brush and hot water to make a lather.

I can't remember ever seeing Burma Shave in cans.

Perhaps both our memories are faulty. Wikipedia describes Burma Shave as being the first "brushless" saving lotion in the USA and apparently it originally came in a tube.

Wiki might also be wrong in that it also says those advertising signs were not located in several southwestern states, including Arizona, because of the paucity of highway traffic yet that is exactly where I saw them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma-Shave

 

[Tom Wells]

Hmmmm. They may have been the first to put a creamed shaving soap in a tube.

That was probably a WW1 innovation.
I personally never saw this brand, while I do remember other tube shaving soap.
I really liked Gillette's "Limette" that I would bring back from Canada.

The only Burma Shave you can buy now is the cake soap, and sometimes they have new Burma Shave brushes alongside.

 

[oldies76]

But they expect their favorite stations to play songs they like... but when they don't, it is not expected and is tantamount to fraud: "you promised me songs I like and you played this one that sucks big time".

Not everyone listening to a given station likes EVERY song that is being played. And if another person says "this song sucks big time", I'm sure that others would highly disagree with that.

David, you assume and make it sound like that all listeners enjoy the same exact songs.....it does not work that way...this isn't robotics or science.

If you were an average listener and tuned into a station, I guarantee you would not like every song played.....human nature.

 

[CTListener]

But they expect their favorite stations to play songs they like... but when they don't, it is not expected and is tantamount to fraud: "you promised me songs I like and you played this one that sucks big time".

Not everyone listening to a given station likes EVERY song that is being played. And if another person says "this song sucks big time", I'm sure that others would highly disagree with that.

David, you assume and make it sound like that all listeners enjoy the same exact songs.....it does not work that way...this isn't robotics or science.

If you were an average listener and tuned into a station, I guarantee you would not like every song played.....human nature.

Stations that are current-based can throw everything out there, because the competition (if there is any) is playing the same songs. A gold-based format, if I understand David correctly, doesn't have that option. It has to play only songs that the largest percentage of potential listeners both know and like, or else someone else is going to chuck the stiffs and hook the very listeners the deep-playlist station was after. It doesn't matter if Listener X likes "Shannon" and doesn't like "Listen to the Music." It doesn't matter if there are dozens of such listeners out there. When the potential listener pool is in the millions or high hundred thousands, the tried and true will win out.

 

[oldies76]

For a less detailed overview of the 1992-2009 ratings, see:

Thank you.....I can see the rebound KRTH had after 2006.
Interestingly, it shows a column for 35-64, and KRTH scored very well under this group.

 

[davideduardo]

Thank you.....I can see the rebound KRTH had after 2006.
Interestingly, it shows a column for 35-64, and KRTH scored very well under this group.

But that's the problem... 35-64 is not a sales demo.

We saw KRTH eroding from top-10 25-54 in the early years of the decade down to 13th and 14th as the years went by.

 

[davideduardo]

Not everyone listening to a given station likes EVERY song that is being played. And if another person says "this song sucks big time", I'm sure that others would highly disagree with that.

No, they don't. If a station does good research, then the songs that are played are, at minimum, neutral to everyone, liked by some and favorites for a significant percentage of people.

David, you assume and make it sound like that all listeners enjoy the same exact songs.....it does not work that way...this isn't robotics or science.

Wrong. This is elementary statistics, which is a science.

Every song a station plays ranks somewhere between 50 (neutral... "I can take it or leave it") to 100 ("It's one of my absolute favorites). Songs that get below a 50 with a statistically significant group of the sample don't get played.

One person's favorite may be another's neutral and yet another's "I like it but it's not one of my favorites". But none of them are most people's "I hate it now and I never liked it" (a Zero) or "I used to like it but I detest it now" (1 to about 15),

If you were an average listener and tuned into a station, I guarantee you would not like every song played.....human nature.

The people who are recruited for music tests are "average listeners" and that is why stations that do quality research get much better ratings than those that don't.

 

[oldies76]

Not everyone listening to a given station likes EVERY song that is being played. And if another person says "this song sucks big time", I'm sure that others would highly disagree with that.

No, they don't. If a station does good research, then the songs that are played are, at minimum, neutral to everyone, liked by some and favorites for a significant percentage of people.

David, you assume and make it sound like that all listeners enjoy the same exact songs.....it does not work that way...this isn't robotics or science.

Wrong. This is elementary statistics, which is a science.

Every song a station plays ranks somewhere between 50 (neutral... "I can take it or leave it") to 100 ("It's one of my absolute favorites). Songs that get below a 50 with a statistically significant group of the sample don't get played.

One person's favorite may be another's neutral and yet another's "I like it but it's not one of my favorites". But none of them are most people's "I hate it now and I never liked it" (a Zero) or "I used to like it but I detest it now" (1 to about 15),

If you were an average listener and tuned into a station, I guarantee you would not like every song played.....human nature.

The people who are recruited for music tests are "average listeners" and that is why stations that do quality research get much better ratings than those that don't.

You are great with providing statistical information and the history of radio broadcasting and you have extensive knowledge in this field, but I just cannot agree with some of the things relating to music that you've pointed out vs. the points I've been trying to make for a while now.
That's ok though. It's just a matter of opinion.

 

[davideduardo]

You are great with providing statistical information and the history of radio broadcasting and you have extensive knowledge in this field, but I just cannot agree with some of the things relating to music that you've pointed out vs. the points I've been trying to make for a while now.
That's ok though. It's just a matter of opinion.

The statistics and the history are part of the range of knowledge needed to program a radio station in a competitive environment. This is all an essential part of a toolkit programmers use.

I've programmed a variant of classic hits in half the top 10 markets, and research was a significant part of that... but so was having the best talent, the right production people, a marketing program, good engineering and top general management.

While the focus of this, and numerous previous threads, has been "why don't stations play every song that charted..." or some variant on that theme, there is a whole lot more than the songs involved in programming. And even with the songs, there are elements like skillful segues, balanced sweeps, good log editing, the mechanics of rotation and so on that make each song play in the right place and in the right environment.

I'm reminded of a story about Jhani Kaye when he was at KOST. Before digital workstations existed, he had the tip and the tail of every song in his library on cassettes. If he was uncertain of how a segue would sound, he would put the tail of the first song on one deck and the tip of the next on another, and play the segue... and decide if it worked. Today, I have the tips and tails and hooks of every song on a log, and can instantly see if a segue works, or using the hooks, see if a sweep has the right flavor. And I am not alone in doing things like this.

You see, you look for something on the radio that is akin to a museum exhibit... a recreation of the past, with every last detail (or song) of a bygone era. Radio stations are not museums. They are, in a sense, alive, and morphing every day. Stations play what people want to hear today, not what they might have heard in the past.

Statistics are like the colored pieces of glass you use to make a stained glass window. If you have the wrong colors and sizes, even the most skilled artisan can not make a work of art.

 

[PirateJohnny]

Well said, David.

Now, an interesting question. Would you (anybody reading this, not jut David) allow a former low rated song to become a high rated song? As in "I had forgotten about that song. I don't know why I didn't like it back then". Would you consider a song today that you would not have considered five or ten years ago?

 

[landtuna]

Well said, David.

Now, an interesting question. Would you (anybody reading this, not jut David) allow a former low rated song to become a high rated song? As in "I had forgotten about that song. I don't know why I didn't like it back then". Would you consider a song today that you would not have considered five or ten years ago?

As long as you ask......When I returned to the world in '66 "Satisfaction" by the Stones was being played a lot. I hated it. HATED IT!!!!! It was a button-pusher. Now....over the past few years, not only do I not hate it any longer I actually get into it whenever it is played. I have no idea why.

 

[davideduardo]

Well said, David.

Now, an interesting question. Would you (anybody reading this, not jut David) allow a former low rated song to become a high rated song? As in "I had forgotten about that song. I don't know why I didn't like it back then". Would you consider a song today that you would not have considered five or ten years ago?

Absolutely. Stations that play lots of gold often recycle into new tests songs that did not test but which have the "look and feel" of belonging in the format. And stations that test almost always test a lot more than just what they are playing... they do "what if?" testing all the time.

Of course, I'd be hesitant to retest novelty songs or things that were too MOR (Ballad of the Green Berets, Perry Como songs, Wolverton Mountain) unless I had lots and lots of free slots in a test.

Many stations in the past have tested a smattering of Donna SUmmer, Patrick Hernadez and Village People just to see if the disco backlash died down and whether some of those songs actually fit certain formats... if some of them tested, the next test would have more.

 

[CTListener]

Well said, David.

Now, an interesting question. Would you (anybody reading this, not jut David) allow a former low rated song to become a high rated song? As in "I had forgotten about that song. I don't know why I didn't like it back then". Would you consider a song today that you would not have considered five or ten years ago?

Absolutely. Stations that play lots of gold often recycle into new tests songs that did not test but which have the "look and feel" of belonging in the format. And stations that test almost always test a lot more than just what they are playing... they do "what if?" testing all the time.

Of course, I'd be hesitant to retest novelty songs or things that were too MOR (Ballad of the Green Berets, Perry Como songs, Wolverton Mountain) unless I had lots and lots of free slots in a test.

Many stations in the past have tested a smattering of Donna SUmmer, Patrick Hernadez and Village People just to see if the disco backlash died down and whether some of those songs actually fit certain formats... if some of them tested, the next test would have more.

One of the interesting aspects of WDRC-FM Hartford's transition from oldies to classic hits is the amount of disco in the playlist. We're not talking just "I Will Survive" and "Rock the Boat." We're talking "Dim All the Lights" and "Bad Girls" and even Barry Manilow's "Copacabana." I can't see any of that stuff testing well 10 years ago, but as the rabidly anti-disco children of the '50s and '60s age out of the format, disco has become not only safe to play but one of the pillars of the classic hits format.

 

[landtuna]

... but as the rabidly anti-disco children of the '50s and '60s age out of the format, disco has become not only safe to play but one of the pillars of the classic hits format.

NEVAH, NEVAH, NEVAH!!!!!!!!

Disco is to Oldies/Classic Hits as Rap is to Classical.

 

[Shiny Knob]

"Tune out factor" is a great cop out. But I really, truly believe that stations fear the button pushing bandits way too much. There are some people who are going to tune out whatever's playing if they get a gas cramp from a bad taco.

But what I see happening is the erosion of the 'give a damn' factor in the rest of the audience. The same songs that cause a strong enough reaction for the button pushers to jump to the next station are quite often exactly the songs that give the rest of us a strong POSITIVE reaction.

'Mrs. Brown, You've Got a Lovely Daughter' is the scourge of thoroughly tested oldies formats across the planet. Those button pushers will get into a car wreck tuning that sucker out. But for me, I really miss that song and a lot of others on the 'Your Favorite 450 Hits Over and Over Between the 10 Minute Commercial Breaks Classic Hits Station."

By eliminating the hot button songs that are tune outs, stations have also eliminated the feeling of excitement that used to be a part of radio. Eliminating possible tune outs means eliminating strong emotions in the listener.

And that's the REAL reason people only buy a radio if it's in something else like a car, a stereo, phone or their deluxe microwave oven.

You have to actually give a damn about radio to actually buy a damned radio.

Thank you consultants for eliminating the power and emotion from radio so nobody has to react to it. The stations may all be bland, but at least nobody really cares enough to be very upset.

 

[davideduardo]

"Tune out factor" is a great cop out. But I really, truly believe that stations fear the button pushing bandits way too much. There are some people who are going to tune out whatever's playing if they get a gas cramp from a bad taco.

The tune-out for reasons other than a song itself can be easily separated from the "I'm outta' here" reactions to a hated song. When stations look at the history of tune out... or lack of same... for a song over many, many plays over many weeks in many dayparts... and see that every time it plays the same audience loss occurs, then there is solid ground to cease playing a song.

And if the song is part of a music test, and the song has very few "favorite" scores and lots of below-neutral scores, it isn't playable.

If, in a sweep, you play 6 songs, each of which has 25% to 30% hate or acquired dislike (burn) on it, you can generally assume that just about everyone in the audience has just heard 2 or 3 songs that they dislike immensely. Do you think those listeners will be back later or tomorrow?

The same songs that cause a strong enough reaction for the button pushers to jump to the next station are quite often exactly the songs that give the rest of us a strong POSITIVE reaction.

Classic hits stations are not principally programmed for "hard core oldies fans". They are programmed for a much broader group of listeners who enjoy the familiarity, the fell and the memories that come with the music. These are not listeners looking for a museum experience... they are looking for a mood. A bad song destroys the mood.

By eliminating the hot button songs that are tune outs, stations have also eliminated the feeling of excitement that used to be a part of radio. Eliminating possible tune outs means eliminating strong emotions in the listener.

While minute by minute research is new to the PPM, stations have had callout and music tests for over three decades. Do you really think stations played bad songs in the 70's and 80's if their research indicated that those songs had no appeal or had lost any appeal they once had among the bulk of listeners?

And that's the REAL reason people only buy a radio if it's in something else like a car, a stereo, phone or their deluxe microwave oven.

People don't buy radios because they feel they get a wider range of options from a computer, tablet or smartphone. What is becoming antiquated is the single-use device called a "radio" as we see from the "dashboard" on many new cars which offer all kinds of options... options that car buyers find important enough to decide on a vehicle based in part on the range of dashboard options.

You have to actually give a damn about radio to actually buy a damned radio.

No, you have to be a Luddite to buy a single purpose radio today. I'd never buy a stand-alone radio when I can have my phone, my email, my "radio stations", my music collection, my videos, my Internet, my maps and GPS, and my messaging all on one device I can put in my pocket!

Thank you consultants for eliminating the power and emotion from radio so nobody has to react to it. The stations may all be bland, but at least nobody really cares enough to be very upset.

Without a lengthy explanation, all I can say is that you don't have a clue what consultants do... or understand that there are very few independent programming consultants out there any more.