Which is the bigger "tune out" factor?

[michael hagerty]

But to make it a workable format, one that would have a large enough listening base in any given 15 minute period to make the station successful, you'd have to do research to find out what songs which listeners liked and disliked, and then weed out the ones with the negatives to keep the listening level from dropping below profitability and......

(wavy screen....harp music)

Haven't we heard this somewhere before? ;D

I don't see how you can test today's teens on music of the 50's and incorporate the results into a new workable format, if they never grew up with them. They would be unfamiliar with probably over 95% of those hits, just in the top 10. They might know Elvis, Buddy Holly or the Champs. Would they appreciate Gogi Grant, Lloyd Price or Pat Boone or even Paul Anka? It's anyone's guess.

You would have to test the songs on whether the respondents liked what they heard, not whether they had ever heard it before. Which, essentially, is what music testing does anyway. A song with low-ish familiarity but low negatives has a lot better chance of airplay than a song with both high familiarity and high negatives.

And you said "teens", I didn't. Again, there's no market for them. They may as well be 55+. Know, however that when it comes to familiarity with 50s music, you could probably say the same thing for anyone under the age of 50 (this year, that's someone born in 1963, who graduated high school in 1981, and college in 1985).

 

[landtuna]

And you said "teens", I didn't. Again, there's no market for them. They may as well be 55+.

You my have hit on something I missed.

Back in the 50's and 60's music was directed right at the 12-20 crowd. Top-40 back then was RnR/Pop and the DJ's, commercials and the music itself (the hot theme was "love" and relationship type stuff) were all teen-friendly. Instead of ads for Chevy's we had roller skating rinks and drive-ins, clothes and records and yes, Clearasil.

Today, you say, teens are not targeted. Perhaps they have no money (but they must have much more than my generation had because we had squat). And they do watch American Idol so they must be into some amount of today's music (I say that with a grimace on my face).

Perhaps the problem is not the music but rather the advertisers.

 

[michael hagerty]

And you said "teens", I didn't. Again, there's no market for them. They may as well be 55+.

You my have hit on something I missed.

Back in the 50's and 60's music was directed right at the 12-20 crowd. Top-40 back then was RnR/Pop and the DJ's, commercials and the music itself (the hot theme was "love" and relationship type stuff) were all teen-friendly. Instead of ads for Chevy's we had roller skating rinks and drive-ins, clothes and records and yes, Clearasil.

Today, you say, teens are not targeted. Perhaps they have no money (but they must have much more than my generation had because we had squat). And they do watch American Idol so they must be into some amount of today's music (I say that with a grimace on my face).

Perhaps the problem is not the music but rather the advertisers.

Money is a situational thing. There are people and families with and without it (sometimes both at different times) constantly.

As a group, I think teens today have less disposable income than my friends and I did in the early 70s. Everyone I knew had a part-time job by 15, at an hourly rate that, adjusted for inflation, works out to being about three bucks an hour more than what my kids and their friends have been getting.

At 19, working full-time, I made the equivalent of (according to the online inflation calculator) $35,081.30 in today's money. Yeah, I was in radio...but it was $600 a month in Ukiah, California. I had buddies working as mechanics or meat-cutters at Safeway who made more than I was making.

And we could pound down the overtime like nobody's business. Today, the bean-counters are making sure nobody gets too close to 30 hours, much less 40+, to make sure they stay part-timers and aren't eligible for time and a half, double time or benefits.

We ate out, bought movie and concert tickets, record albums....and...some of us...myself, included...cars (buy a used car for $650, hold it for a year, trade it for what you paid for it on a $2,000 new car and finance the remaining $1350 over 36 months...car payment's a shade under $50). And I was not a rich kid. So there was a lot advertisers could aim at us. I can't imagine where I'd find a $35,000 a year gig as a 19 year old today.

 

[michael hagerty]

Michael,
Thanks for the Pandora update. It's about as monotonous or boring as radio is in my taste, but thanks for showing me one example!

You're welcome. It was fun.

Worth remembering: We set that channel up using one of your "most overplayed" songs as a base. So your finding it monotonous shouldn't really be a surprise. Pandora's free. Set up an account and try it with a song you never hear but love and see what it gives you.

 

[michael hagerty]

Here's a neat use of chart books: I know a guy who did a morning show who would, every Monday (in diary days, of course) play the "How could this have become a hit" song... he had production edit a wretched but top 20 song to about 1:20 and then he took calls from listeners, most of whom said, "Ewww... I don't know how I could have liked that one...."

Oh, they probably played "Dominique" or "My Ding A Ling".... ;D

One show I know the host of did it for years and years without repeating a song. Some of the more notorious were "Honey" and "Teen Angel" and "Yummy Yummy" and "Ring My Bell". But there are hundreds of those songs.

Occasionally someone would call and say, "Hey, I like that song" and the host would don a priestly voice and ring a bell and say, "I pardon you, my son" (or daughter as the case might have been). It was always good for a couple of laughs, too.

Most people don't want to be reminded that they wore bell bottoms, tie died shirts and had hair that was too long or too scruffy... music changes too.

There was even a time when we thought a Corvair looked cool.

I've heard the "dreaded morning oldie" bit done...most often it wasn't something especially cringe-worthy...just way out of tune with the times.

"Wichita Lineman" was one of the ones they did 10 or 15 years ago. I personally think that's not only a great song but one of the best records (from a production/arrangement standpoint) I've ever heard. But billboarded as the "dreaded morning oldie" to an audience that wasn't old enough to care about any of Glen Campbell's hits, who wanted upbeat music while they got ready for work, the result was the same. It could have been a lame novelty record.

Music appeal is about knowing your audience, their expectations and how they use the medium.

 

[firepoint525]

Know, however that when it comes to familiarity with 50s music, you could probably say the same thing for anyone under the age of 50 (this year, that's someone born in 1963, who graduated high school in 1981, and college in 1985).

You didn't pay any attention to what I just posted earlier today, did you? Here it is again, since you came very close to my age group with the above quote.

I grew up in the '70s on music from the '50s, '60s, and '70s. (Go back and look it up if you want to know how old I am now.) Radio has been relatively irrelevant to me for many years. And yet, I am supposedly still within their prized demographic. The conventional "wisdom" among advertisers is (apparently) that if I am not old enough to remember something from when it was actually a hit, then I supposedly am not familiar with it. Where did that thinking come from? Sure, I am partial to music from my generation, but I am still familiar with the stuff from the '50s and '60s. Evidently, I am required to develop what I call "convenient amnesia" and forget that I remember songs that were hits before I was born. So they were hits before I was born. So what? Doesn't mean that I can't still enjoy them. The radio station in the town where I grew up was a top 40, but they played everything from the '50s to the '70s. A limited playlist of songs, I am sure, but they played 'em all.
I suppose it could have been worse. I could have grown up somewhere where the only station in town was a country station!

 

[michael hagerty]

Know, however that when it comes to familiarity with 50s music, you could probably say the same thing for anyone under the age of 50 (this year, that's someone born in 1963, who graduated high school in 1981, and college in 1985).

You didn't pay any attention to what I just posted earlier today, did you? Here it is again, since you came very close to my age group with the above quote.

I grew up in the '70s on music from the '50s, '60s, and '70s. (Go back and look it up if you want to know how old I am now.) Radio has been relatively irrelevant to me for many years. And yet, I am supposedly still within their prized demographic. The conventional "wisdom" among advertisers is (apparently) that if I am not old enough to remember something from when it was actually a hit, then I supposedly am not familiar with it. Where did that thinking come from? Sure, I am partial to music from my generation, but I am still familiar with the stuff from the '50s and '60s. Evidently, I am required to develop what I call "convenient amnesia" and forget that I remember songs that were hits before I was born. So they were hits before I was born. So what? Doesn't mean that I can't still enjoy them. The radio station in the town where I grew up was a top 40, but they played everything from the '50s to the '70s. A limited playlist of songs, I am sure, but they played 'em all.
I suppose it could have been worse. I could have grown up somewhere where the only station in town was a country station!

I read it. I paid attention to it. It doesn't make you typical of your (our) generation. Most of the people not in radio that I knew growing up in the 70s started paying attention to pop music around age 12 or 13...so that's 1968, 1969. They didn't seek out old records. Yeah, Top 40 played some, but very rarely did they go back more than 10 years or lower on the charts than Top 5. They were usually million-sellers.

So there was exposure (once or twice an hour, more during a "Golden Weekend"), but that's not the same thing as familiarity. By 1972 or so, most of the guys I knew had blown off Top 40 for album rock (KLOS or KMET), where they weren't likely to hear anything recorded before 1967. The girls stuck with Top 40, but around '73, most successful Top 40s had cut their gold libraries and weren't playing anything pre-Beatles.

And while this started with personal observations of my peers, I found in the course of programming radio stations throughout the 70s in different places that what I've described was the experience for the majority of people in my age bracket, and that, apart from absolute personal favorites, the average listener will forget a song once they haven't heard it in five years or more. In some cases a year or less. They're not all record freaks. In fact, most aren't.

 

[oldies76]

the average listener will forget a song once they haven't heard it in five years or more. In some cases a year or less. They're not all record freaks. In fact, most aren't.

So, really it is the fault of radio (in a way) why the average listener forgets music they've not heard since 1 to 5 years back. If radio terminates a song, for some reason like testing, then all the listeners will not have heard such song for a long time. So therefore it becomes unfamiliar to the average masses, and it will test negative in subsequent music tests, due to unfamiliarity. A good theory, huh? Makes sense, at least for the average radio listener.

And if it wasn't for the "record freaks" and other aficionados, all would be lost. This is now more important than ever, as time continues to march on......

 

[michael hagerty]

the average listener will forget a song once they haven't heard it in five years or more. In some cases a year or less. They're not all record freaks. In fact, most aren't.

So, really it is the fault of radio (in a way) why the average listener forgets music they've not heard since 1 to 5 years back. If radio terminates a song, for some reason like testing, then all the listeners will not have heard such song for a long time. So therefore it becomes unfamiliar to the average masses, and it will test negative in subsequent music tests, due to unfamiliarity. A good theory, huh? Makes sense, at least for the average radio listener.

And if it wasn't for the "record freaks" and other aficionados, all would be lost. This is now more important than ever, as time continues to march on......

Oldies:

No, as I noted above, familiarity and likability are rated separately. Unfamiliar doesn't translate to negatives.

And by forget, I don't mean people won't remember it when played (though some won't). That's where the phrase "I'd forgotten all about that song" comes from. They just don't spend time worrying about not having heard songs that they don't count as their favorites.

Radio's fault? No. It's just human nature for the majority of people. They don't miss the records they don't love or like. Which is why, with exceptions like the atypical listeners who contribute to this board, radio loses nothing by what it doesn't play.

 

[michael hagerty]

And if it wasn't for the "record freaks" and other aficionados, all would be lost. This is now more important than ever, as time continues to march on......

I think iTunes and the Library of Congress have us covered.

 

[Thomps2525]

Mister hagerty says that radio stations and advertisers aren't interested in teens the way they were in the 1960s-70s. He's probably right. In the '60s-70s we had Frankie Avalon, Bobby Rydell, Fabian, Paul Peterson, Shelly Fabares, Johnny Crawford, Leif Garrett, Shaun Cassidy, the Osmonds and the Monkees. In the 2000s we have Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, Demi Lovato, Cher Lloyd, Selena Gomez, Miranda Cosgrove, Willow Smith, Rachel Crow, One Direction and the Jonas Brothers.

Oh wait.....

 

[michael hagerty]

Mister hagerty says that radio stations and advertisers aren't interested in teens the way they were in the 1960s-70s. He's probably right. In the '60s-70s we had Frankie Avalon, Bobby Rydell, Fabian, Paul Peterson, Shelly Fabares, Johnny Crawford, Leif Garrett, Shaun Cassidy, the Osmonds and the Monkees. In the 2000s we have Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, Demi Lovato, Cher Lloyd, Selena Gomez, Miranda Cosgrove, Willow Smith, Rachel Crow, One Direction and the Jonas Brothers.

Oh wait.....

I promise you they're only getting played if they test well with 18-34 females.

 

[davideduardo]

Mister hagerty says that radio stations and advertisers aren't interested in teens the way they were in the 1960s-70s.

Save a few accounts that advertised mostly at night for teens, most of the focus of Top 40 stations was on adults and accounts that catered to adults.

The belief that only teens listened to Top 40 is not born out when we see that the Top 40 share in the mid to late 50's and early to mid 60's approached 50% in some markets. No market was made up 50% of teens.

Teens were a fulcrum used to leverage big young adult numbers. Bring the teens, and the young adults will follow was the mantra, born out by countless stations that went pure teen appeal when converting to Top 40 and then mellowed out to being predominantly adult-focused until mid-afternoon while appealing to teens afterwards.

I'm from the home of the term "rock 'n roll" and remember who advertised with Alan Freed... merchants like Larry Robinson, the Diamond Man on the second floor of the Schofield Building. Or B&B Appliances, with cut rates on TVs and sound consoles... not stuff teens bought.

In fact, Todd Storz invented Top 40 in 1951 and the common anecdote is that the idea sprang from watching waitresses play the same songs over and over on a jukebox... an adult waitress, to be sure.

Teens made the fads, but young adults brought in the money.

More than just teens like Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, Demi Lovato, Cher Lloyd, Selena Gomez, Miranda Cosgrove, Willow Smith, Rachel Crow, One Direction and the Jonas Brothers, too. In fact, I like most of them enough to have some of their songs on my iPhone... along with Pitbull and Rihanna and other Top 40 artists.

 

[landtuna]

More than just teens like Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, Demi Lovato, Cher Lloyd, Selena Gomez, Miranda Cosgrove, Willow Smith, Rachel Crow, One Direction and the Jonas Brothers, too. In fact, I like most of them enough to have some of their songs on my iPhone... along with Pitbull and Rihanna and other Top 40 artists.

UGH! You've just lost your credibility. ;D

 

[davideduardo]

More than just teens like Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, Demi Lovato, Cher Lloyd, Selena Gomez, Miranda Cosgrove, Willow Smith, Rachel Crow, One Direction and the Jonas Brothers, too. In fact, I like most of them enough to have some of their songs on my iPhone... along with Pitbull and Rihanna and other Top 40 artists.

UGH! You've just lost your credibility. ;D

I've got Gagnam Style plus a dose of J-Pop and K-Pop there, too.

 

[firepoint525]

the average listener will forget a song once they haven't heard it in five years or more. In some cases a year or less. They're not all record freaks. In fact, most aren't.

So, really it is the fault of radio (in a way) why the average listener forgets music they've not heard since 1 to 5 years back. If radio terminates a song, for some reason like testing, then all the listeners will not have heard such song for a long time. So therefore it becomes unfamiliar to the average masses, and it will test negative in subsequent music tests, due to unfamiliarity. A good theory, huh? Makes sense, at least for the average radio listener.
And if it wasn't for the "record freaks" and other aficionados, all would be lost. This is now more important than ever, as time continues to march on......

I suppose that these are the people who find "lost" 45s in their own collections, and ask, "how did that get there?" ;D

 

[firepoint525]

Mister hagerty says that radio stations and advertisers aren't interested in teens the way they were in the 1960s-70s. He's probably right. In the '60s-70s we had Frankie Avalon, Bobby Rydell, Fabian, Paul Peterson, Shelly Fabares, Johnny Crawford, Leif Garrett, Shaun Cassidy, the Osmonds and the Monkees. In the 2000s we have Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, Demi Lovato, Cher Lloyd, Selena Gomez, Miranda Cosgrove, Willow Smith, Rachel Crow, One Direction and the Jonas Brothers.
Oh wait.....

I promise you they're only getting played if they test well with 18-34 females.

Probably explains why we got stuck with "Elvira" on what was supposedly "pop" radio back in the early '80s. :

 

[michael hagerty]

the average listener will forget a song once they haven't heard it in five years or more. In some cases a year or less. They're not all record freaks. In fact, most aren't.

So, really it is the fault of radio (in a way) why the average listener forgets music they've not heard since 1 to 5 years back. If radio terminates a song, for some reason like testing, then all the listeners will not have heard such song for a long time. So therefore it becomes unfamiliar to the average masses, and it will test negative in subsequent music tests, due to unfamiliarity. A good theory, huh? Makes sense, at least for the average radio listener.
And if it wasn't for the "record freaks" and other aficionados, all would be lost. This is now more important than ever, as time continues to march on......

I suppose that these are the people who find "lost" 45s in their own collections, and ask, "how did that get there?" ;D

Occasionally. Though most people don't buy records they really don't care about. But, as David points out, our tastes change as we age. So that song that was worth a purchase at age 15 might be forgotten and found in a stack at 50.

 

[firepoint525]

Radio may "forget" 45s, but we don't. Those usually go on to become "guilty pleasures" or something like that. ;D Back in the day, radio used to introduce us to those 45s that they would soon go on to "forget."

 

[michael hagerty]

Radio may "forget" 45s, but we don't. Those usually go on to become "guilty pleasures" or something like that. ;D Back in the day, radio used to introduce us to those 45s that they would soon go on to "forget."

Perhaps you, Oldies76 and others don't forget them. Most people do.