Which is the bigger "tune out" factor?

[oldies76]

By the way, I love Year Of The Cat (and the less-successful followups Time Passages and Song On The Radio).

All three of those are heard on Musak FM-1, where I work. Very nice songs, indeed!

 

[michael hagerty]

Why test 50-54? They are not going to add anything to the results that makes the station inviting to 40-44 year olds who have to like the station to tune it in regularly.

Well, since they listen too and they are part of the target (50-54), their ratings in a music test should be incorporated with the others to mix up a station with more "tested well" music from a slightly wider range of years. In other words, more songs. A 50 year old today, familiar with 1977 music would be at an advantage over, say a 35 year old testing that same music. A 50 year old will "approve" older classic hits, than a 35-40 years old would. Just a thought....

Um...that's the problem. You'd be allowing someone who is about to age out of your target to influence the music in a way that adds songs that aren't positives for the people you hope will listen for the next 10 years.

Forget 35 year olds. As I said in the last post, today's 45 year old attended high school from 1982-1986, college from 1986-1990.

The shocker is that even a 50 year old today was in high school from 1977-1981 and college from 1981-1985. You're not likely to get a lot of 70s memories out of that guy, either. But he's on his way out. You still need to be asking people 5-10 years younger.

 

[CTListener]

The shocker is that even a 50 year old today was in high school from 1977-1981 and college from 1981-1985. You're not likely to get a lot of 70s memories out of that guy, either. But he's on his way out. You still need to be asking people 5-10 years younger.

That's why such former format mainstays from the early '70s like "You're So Vain" and "American Pie" no longer get much exposure on DRC-FM, I suppose. The time is drawing near for most of the '70s music to "age out" of the format just as all but the most transcendent hits of the '60s have. Then classic hits stations will reach a real crisis: the '90s -- all that rap, all that grunge, all those turgid charts where songs routinely stayed at No. 1 for nearly two months and in the top 30 for six or seven. How in the world are you going to get an 800-song playlist with that little hit music to work with? Will '80s music and '90s music even coexist on a single radio station, or will there have to be "rock/pop" classic hits and "rhythmic/urban" classic hits stations?

 

[michael hagerty]

The shocker is that even a 50 year old today was in high school from 1977-1981 and college from 1981-1985. You're not likely to get a lot of 70s memories out of that guy, either. But he's on his way out. You still need to be asking people 5-10 years younger.

That's why such former format mainstays from the early '70s like "You're So Vain" and "American Pie" no longer get much exposure on DRC-FM, I suppose. The time is drawing near for most of the '70s music to "age out" of the format just as all but the most transcendent hits of the '60s have. Then classic hits stations will reach a real crisis: the '90s -- all that rap, all that grunge, all those turgid charts where songs routinely stayed at No. 1 for nearly two months and in the top 30 for six or seven. How in the world are you going to get an 800-song playlist with that little hit music to work with? Will '80s music and '90s music even coexist on a single radio station, or will there have to be "rock/pop" classic hits and "rhythmic/urban" classic hits stations?

We split Classic Rock off from Oldies when it was believed that Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple, which co-existed with the Temptations and the Beach Boys originally on Top 40, couldn't co-exist with them on an Oldies station.

If they need to split 90s music between mainstream and rhythmic, that won't be that big a deal. But in the same way KRTH is an echo of KHJ, I'd expect the 80s/90s Classic Hits to be an echo of KIIS-FM or Z-100, both of which have found the mass appeal in that music and maintained amazing ratings.

 

[firepoint525]

As for luck programming the 90s, that's for the active programmers. But again, remember...when aiming for 25-54, you're not trying to get 25 year olds and you're not trying to get 54 year olds. Like archery, you aim for the center. That's 39 and a half (round it up to 40). Someone born in 1973, who graduated high school in 1991 and college in 1995. 90s music will probably be a lot easier to do than the 70s and 80s music was.
The rest of the demo? It's like ripples from a rock thrown into a pond. Successfully grab that 40 year old and 35-45 is pretty much a gimme. 30-50 isn't that big a reach. But those five years on either end, that's hit and miss.

I wish you would tell semoochie (on that other thread) that. He is fretting about dropping '60s-'70s music now, and dropping '50s music back in '04. I told him that the '50s were largely GONE from oldies radio by '04, but like so many on this board, he wouldn't let the truth get in the way of his pre-formed opinions. :

When I think '90s music, I think Hootie & the Blowfish. And while I certainly am not their biggest fan, I would not necessarily tune them out, either. Yet, someone, maybe it was even on this thread, suggested that Hootie did not "test well." If Hootie does not test well, then programming the '90s is going to be a big headache for '90s programmers. Hence my belief that they may opt for sports/talk if their particular market will bear it.

 

[firepoint525]

The shocker is that even a 50 year old today was in high school from 1977-1981 and college from 1981-1985. You're not likely to get a lot of 70s memories out of that guy, either. But he's on his way out. You still need to be asking people 5-10 years younger.

That's why such former format mainstays from the early '70s like "You're So Vain" and "American Pie" no longer get much exposure on DRC-FM, I suppose. The time is drawing near for most of the '70s music to "age out" of the format just as all but the most transcendent hits of the '60s have. Then classic hits stations will reach a real crisis: the '90s -- all that rap, all that grunge, all those turgid charts where songs routinely stayed at No. 1 for nearly two months and in the top 30 for six or seven. How in the world are you going to get an 800-song playlist with that little hit music to work with? Will '80s music and '90s music even coexist on a single radio station, or will there have to be "rock/pop" classic hits and "rhythmic/urban" classic hits stations?

This is (kinda) what I have been saying here and on other threads. Some of those rap hits became hits WITHOUT radio airplay. (They had to--too many obscenities in them!) This is why radio started using "airplay-only" charts. Too many raps (that they couldn't (or wouldn't) play) were making the sales charts.

And some of those #1s in the '90s held on for FOUR months. "Macarena" racked up 16 weeks at #1. And LeAnn Rimes' version of "How Do I Live" somehow stayed in the top 40 for OVER A YEAR! There's your proof that chart manipulation didn't end with the payola days.

 

[CTListener]

The shocker is that even a 50 year old today was in high school from 1977-1981 and college from 1981-1985. You're not likely to get a lot of 70s memories out of that guy, either. But he's on his way out. You still need to be asking people 5-10 years younger.

That's why such former format mainstays from the early '70s like "You're So Vain" and "American Pie" no longer get much exposure on DRC-FM, I suppose. The time is drawing near for most of the '70s music to "age out" of the format just as all but the most transcendent hits of the '60s have. Then classic hits stations will reach a real crisis: the '90s -- all that rap, all that grunge, all those turgid charts where songs routinely stayed at No. 1 for nearly two months and in the top 30 for six or seven. How in the world are you going to get an 800-song playlist with that little hit music to work with? Will '80s music and '90s music even coexist on a single radio station, or will there have to be "rock/pop" classic hits and "rhythmic/urban" classic hits stations?

This is (kinda) what I have been saying here and on other threads. Some of those rap hits became hits WITHOUT radio airplay. (They had to--too many obscenities in them!) This is why radio started using "airplay-only" charts. Too many raps (that they couldn't (or wouldn't) play) were making the sales charts.

And some of those #1s in the '90s held on for FOUR months. "Macarena" racked up 16 weeks at #1. And LeAnn Rimes' version of "How Do I Live" somehow stayed in the top 40 for OVER A YEAR! There's your proof that chart manipulation didn't end with the payola days.

But if the charts were measuring airplay rather than sales by the time those two songs came along, whare was the manipulation? What did Los Del Rio have to gain from 16 weeks of saturation airplay at every CHR in the country (plus all that exposure on Latino-formatted stations)? Didn't everyone who wanted to buy the single have it by the time Week 6 was over, or earlier? Between the rap they couldn't play and the trickle of product that pretty much had to be played for months on end because the labels weren't putting anything into the pipeline, you had about as dire a period as CHR and CHR listeners ever had to suffer through. Please tell me who benefited during those years?

 

[firepoint525]

Not me. I had LONG since given up on top 40 by then. I don't know exactly when stations started using "airplay-only" charts. But I still think that some money HAD to have been passed under the table to keep just ONE LeAnn Rimes song on the charts for well over a year!

 

[Biondi4Mayor]

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.

 

[michael hagerty]

As for luck programming the 90s, that's for the active programmers. But again, remember...when aiming for 25-54, you're not trying to get 25 year olds and you're not trying to get 54 year olds. Like archery, you aim for the center. That's 39 and a half (round it up to 40). Someone born in 1973, who graduated high school in 1991 and college in 1995. 90s music will probably be a lot easier to do than the 70s and 80s music was.
The rest of the demo? It's like ripples from a rock thrown into a pond. Successfully grab that 40 year old and 35-45 is pretty much a gimme. 30-50 isn't that big a reach. But those five years on either end, that's hit and miss.

I wish you would tell semoochie (on that other thread) that. He is fretting about dropping '60s-'70s music now, and dropping '50s music back in '04. I told him that the '50s were largely GONE from oldies radio by '04, but like so many on this board, he wouldn't let the truth get in the way of his pre-formed opinions. :

When I think '90s music, I think Hootie & the Blowfish. And while I certainly am not their biggest fan, I would not necessarily tune them out, either. Yet, someone, maybe it was even on this thread, suggested that Hootie did not "test well." If Hootie does not test well, then programming the '90s is going to be a big headache for '90s programmers. Hence my belief that they may opt for sports/talk if their particular market will bear it.

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.

 

[michael hagerty]

The shocker is that even a 50 year old today was in high school from 1977-1981 and college from 1981-1985. You're not likely to get a lot of 70s memories out of that guy, either. But he's on his way out. You still need to be asking people 5-10 years younger.

That's why such former format mainstays from the early '70s like "You're So Vain" and "American Pie" no longer get much exposure on DRC-FM, I suppose. The time is drawing near for most of the '70s music to "age out" of the format just as all but the most transcendent hits of the '60s have. Then classic hits stations will reach a real crisis: the '90s -- all that rap, all that grunge, all those turgid charts where songs routinely stayed at No. 1 for nearly two months and in the top 30 for six or seven. How in the world are you going to get an 800-song playlist with that little hit music to work with? Will '80s music and '90s music even coexist on a single radio station, or will there have to be "rock/pop" classic hits and "rhythmic/urban" classic hits stations?

This is (kinda) what I have been saying here and on other threads. Some of those rap hits became hits WITHOUT radio airplay. (They had to--too many obscenities in them!) This is why radio started using "airplay-only" charts. Too many raps (that they couldn't (or wouldn't) play) were making the sales charts.

And some of those #1s in the '90s held on for FOUR months. "Macarena" racked up 16 weeks at #1. And LeAnn Rimes' version of "How Do I Live" somehow stayed in the top 40 for OVER A YEAR! There's your proof that chart manipulation didn't end with the payola days.

But if the charts were measuring airplay rather than sales by the time those two songs came along, whare was the manipulation? What did Los Del Rio have to gain from 16 weeks of saturation airplay at every CHR in the country (plus all that exposure on Latino-formatted stations)? Didn't everyone who wanted to buy the single have it by the time Week 6 was over, or earlier? Between the rap they couldn't play and the trickle of product that pretty much had to be played for months on end because the labels weren't putting anything into the pipeline, you had about as dire a period as CHR and CHR listeners ever had to suffer through. Please tell me who benefited during those years?

Just how far back did you guys give up listening to CHR?

Two ways radio stations played offensive material: Radio edits (language simply blanked out while the beat continues uninterrupted underneath) and Clean versions (the artist records a radio-friendly version). Both are common and are how those records got airplay.

"Buy the single?" In the 90s? By that point, apart from club mixes, singles were pretty much vaporware...songs sent to radio to keep them focused on the one track the record label thought would sell more albums.

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.

 

[michael hagerty]

Not me. I had LONG since given up on top 40 by then. I don't know exactly when stations started using "airplay-only" charts. But I still think that some money HAD to have been passed under the table to keep just ONE LeAnn Rimes song on the charts for well over a year!

Nope. My explanation of how and why that happened is one post above this one.

 

[michael hagerty]

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.

Partly. Also, the record industry is a shadow of its former self and doesn't have the budgets to sign the sheer tonnage of acts it once could.

 

[davideduardo]

And some of those #1s in the '90s held on for FOUR months. "Macarena" racked up 16 weeks at #1. And LeAnn Rimes' version of "How Do I Live" somehow stayed in the top 40 for OVER A YEAR! There's your proof that chart manipulation didn't end with the payola days.

For as long as I can remember, record companies promoted the 12 to 13 week song cycle. If a song made it, 3 months later they followed up with a new cut from the album, and wanted PDs to cut the other song and play the new one.

Research, which grew in usage in the 80's (although some stations were doing call out in the mid-70's), showed that songs did not die after three months. So the stations stopped following the record company pattern of adding a new cut every 13 weeks.

Research also showed that top songs that were dropping off did not have to go and rest for a year. They could be played less often than hits, and more often than gold, and never leave the air.

So if a song tested well in callout for 40 weeks, a station would play it for 40 weeks. A common occurrence was to drop an ageing current into a lower rotation and then see its scores on callout increase; lack of frequent play made the song pop back up in "positives" so we'd play up-down-up-down with the song for a while till it truly needed to go to a recurrent.

At LA's #1 station in the 95-97 period, there was one song... a ballad at that... that was a power for 13 months based entirely on lack of burn, near-total positives and high "favorites" that it got in each week's call cycle.

The changes in the chart lifespan of songs had more to do with stations breaking away from the record company promotion cycle than on consolidation.

Research not only validated longer shelf life for currents, it also made the recurrent viable and tended to make programmers more skeptical towards the idea that stations "had" to add new music every week to keep the sound "fresh."

 

[PirateJohnny]

...We split Classic Rock off from Oldies when it was believed that Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple, which co-existed with the Temptations and the Beach Boys originally on Top 40, couldn't co-exist with them on an Oldies station.

Says who? We listened to them on the same station back then. I would still like to hear them all on the same station today. But today I have to listen to two stations to hear these artists that I still like. I'm sure those stations don't like me dividing my time between the two (but I AM 55 now).

On the subject of test groups:
Does familiarity really lead to "like"? When I was younger, 18-35, I liked Buddy Holly and would listen to Buddy Holly records on the radio. I even bought some. He died about the time I was born.

On original Chart reliability:
How reliable were the charts, really? I, for one, never did anything that would contribute to a song's chart ranking. I did not buy current records or call in requests to the local radio station. The "charts" never knew or reflected my likes and dis-likes. And I'm sure I'm not alone in this behavior. I graduated high school in 1975. Looking at Joel Whitburn's info for #1 singles of that year, many songs I liked are not on that list. Maybe I should have bought them and requested them.

 

[Biondi4Mayor]

Those listener panels where the listener self-selects themselves to 'participate are simply "loyalty" involvement moves. I don't know of one station that ever implemented anything based on those panels... but it generally made the participant loyal and encouraged them to spread the word that "KZZZ listens to its listeners".

Yeah, right.

10 years ago or so, I switched an AC station in a market of about 17 million to classic rock. We ran full page ads in a paper that had a circulation of over 1.2 million, and printed every song we might play. Listeners were to tune in and score each one. We got an amazing 80,000 back, using collection boxes at a local convenience store chain.

We also did a music test of 100 people. We implemented the 100 person test, and took pictures of the 80,000 newspaper forms to use in sales material. The station debuted at #1 with over a 20 share. And when we tabulated a small random batch of the 80,000 it turns out that the results closely paralleled the "real test."

Loyalty isn't a bad trait in listeners. In fact if a listener went to the website, or called up a request show, it is because they were REALLY LISTENING to the content of the station---not just the music. Therefore, these listeners should have their input valued greater than it is (labeled as fanatics). If you can get a listener to know a station phone number or website, then they are potentially susceptive to remembering information in commercials as well; they'll listen to the advertisers of "their" station as well. The fact you illustrated that typically classic hits listeners listened to an average of 6-8 (i believe that was the number, but correct me if that wasn't it --- this thread got SO long!) different stations scares me even more. These "wishy-washy" listeners then shouldn't be giving the capability of testing songs on a station they could potentially not be listening to 5 out of 6 (or whatever) times. Sure they may be pray for an advertiser one or two times, but then like their inabillity to be loyal to one station, likely they will become the prey of an opposing advertiser. Whose will they be when they hit that magical age of 55 when they are "too stubborn to try new things"?

In my opinion, stations should foster and support the relationships with the crowd they can count on, and not try so hard to impress a listener who has a multitude of interests in other areas. Classic Hits, Oldies, Greatest Hits...whatever, it bombs in this category in a way that other formats like AAA or Jazz don't. Those formats will never be number one in ratings, but I can think of a variety of cases where those station's billing outpace higher rated ones---classic hits should take note of this.

 

[michael hagerty]

...We split Classic Rock off from Oldies when it was believed that Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple, which co-existed with the Temptations and the Beach Boys originally on Top 40, couldn't co-exist with them on an Oldies station.

Says who? We listened to them on the same station back then. I would still like to hear them all on the same station today. But today I have to listen to two stations to hear these artists that I still like. I'm sure those stations don't like me dividing my time between the two (but I AM 55 now).

On the subject of test groups:
Does familiarity really lead to "like"? When I was younger, 18-35, I liked Buddy Holly and would listen to Buddy Holly records on the radio. I even bought some. He died about the time I was born.

On original Chart reliability:
How reliable were the charts, really? I, for one, never did anything that would contribute to a song's chart ranking. I did not buy current records or call in requests to the local radio station. The "charts" never knew or reflected my likes and dis-likes. And I'm sure I'm not alone in this behavior. I graduated high school in 1975. Looking at Joel Whitburn's info for #1 singles of that year, many songs I liked are not on that list. Maybe I should have bought them and requested them.

If you scroll back through this topic, you'll find the issue of chart reliability discussed thoroughly. The Cliff's Notes version: They weren't reliable. They were subject to manipulation by record labels and record stores in multiple ways. Also, singles sales peaked in 1974 and dropped quickly after that. Any attempt to determine what songs were really popular without also incorporating album sales (again, information that had to be taken with a grain of salt because it, too, could be manipulated) was flawed from the beginning.

In reality, in most markets, Top 40 (especially on AM) was dead from about 1977 until the CHR renaissance in '82 (which was virtually purely FM and didn't revive AM Top 40). Teens had defected to AOR, following the young adults (especially males) who did the same four or five years earlier. And adults found AC stations that played 90% of the hits but spared them a chunk of the disco, Shaun Cassidy and Ram Jam's "Black Betty".

The only way to determine what to play NOW...is to gather a cross-section of the desired audience on a regular basis, play the music for them and get their responses. This is what Classic Hits stations do, and is why those stations are by and large Top 5 stations in their markets.

 

[michael hagerty]

Loyalty isn't a bad trait in listeners. In fact if a listener went to the website, or called up a request show, it is because they were REALLY LISTENING to the content of the station---not just the music. Therefore, these listeners should have their input valued greater than it is (labeled as fanatics). If you can get a listener to know a station phone number or website, then they are potentially susceptive to remembering information in commercials as well; they'll listen to the advertisers of "their" station as well. The fact you illustrated that typically classic hits listeners listened to an average of 6-8 (i believe that was the number, but correct me if that wasn't it --- this thread got SO long!) different stations scares me even more. These "wishy-washy" listeners then shouldn't be giving the capability of testing songs on a station they could potentially not be listening to 5 out of 6 (or whatever).

Here's the flaw in that logic: You've just described the behavior of a minority of listeners. The majority share their listening with other stations.

To give extra weight to people who behave in a manner different from that of the majority will result in choices being made that aren't in line with what the majority is telling us they expect from the radio station.

As for the advertising argument: The ad agencies understand listener behavior. The entire reason demographics are important is that an advertiser, wanting to reach a certain type of listener, will buy the 5, 7, maybe 10 top performing stations in that demographic. That ad will be waiting for that listener on their other favorite stations, as well.

The days of KXXX trying to steal advertisers, one by one, from KZZZ, have been gone for about 30 years. The goal now is to be "in on the buy"...to be one of the stations the account buys time on. And if your demographic performance is what it ought to be, you'll be in on most of the buys, which will fill your commercial log and your bank account.

 

[Biondi4Mayor]

Loyalty isn't a bad trait in listeners. In fact if a listener went to the website, or called up a request show, it is because they were REALLY LISTENING to the content of the station---not just the music. Therefore, these listeners should have their input valued greater than it is (labeled as fanatics). If you can get a listener to know a station phone number or website, then they are potentially susceptive to remembering information in commercials as well; they'll listen to the advertisers of "their" station as well. The fact you illustrated that typically classic hits listeners listened to an average of 6-8 (i believe that was the number, but correct me if that wasn't it --- this thread got SO long!) different stations scares me even more. These "wishy-washy" listeners then shouldn't be giving the capability of testing songs on a station they could potentially not be listening to 5 out of 6 (or whatever).

Here's the flaw in that logic: You've just described the behavior of a minority of listeners. The majority share their listening with other stations.

To give extra weight to people who behave in a manner different from that of the majority will result in choices being made that aren't in line with what the majority is telling us they expect from the radio station.

As for the advertising argument: The ad agencies understand listener behavior. The entire reason demographics are important is that an advertiser, wanting to reach a certain type of listener, will buy the 5, 7, maybe 10 top performing stations in that demographic. That ad will be waiting for that listener on their other favorite stations, as well.

The days of KXXX trying to steal advertisers, one by one, from KZZZ, have been gone for about 30 years. The goal now is to be "in on the buy"...to be one of the stations the account buys time on. And if your demographic performance is what it ought to be, you'll be in on most of the buys, which will fill your commercial log and your bank account.

Well if stations weren't so narrow and didn't suck so much, there would be little reason for a listener to go elsewhere - which is the main arguement of the thread - tuneout factor, and this is one of the reasons I tune-out.

Minority? Well ratings are pretty much established using a minority of PPM listeners. Didn't David say that LA's #1 station could be defined by only 15 meters...to believe people lose their job over ratings is sickening.

I have often wondered since this topic started if Oldies could find a happy home on public radio in the same way Jazz and classical do. Ratings don't govern every move, it could be on an FM in a big city (not small AM's like David suggested earlier), jocks are allowed to connect with their listeners, and teach their audience something. PBS does numerous Ed Sullivan specials, Motown Box sets etc. I would love to see both Oldies and Smooth Jazz (another format that got kicked to the curb) appreciated with class and distinction --- two things that the corporates can't do!

 

[michael hagerty]

Loyalty isn't a bad trait in listeners. In fact if a listener went to the website, or called up a request show, it is because they were REALLY LISTENING to the content of the station---not just the music. Therefore, these listeners should have their input valued greater than it is (labeled as fanatics). If you can get a listener to know a station phone number or website, then they are potentially susceptive to remembering information in commercials as well; they'll listen to the advertisers of "their" station as well. The fact you illustrated that typically classic hits listeners listened to an average of 6-8 (i believe that was the number, but correct me if that wasn't it --- this thread got SO long!) different stations scares me even more. These "wishy-washy" listeners then shouldn't be giving the capability of testing songs on a station they could potentially not be listening to 5 out of 6 (or whatever).

Here's the flaw in that logic: You've just described the behavior of a minority of listeners. The majority share their listening with other stations.

To give extra weight to people who behave in a manner different from that of the majority will result in choices being made that aren't in line with what the majority is telling us they expect from the radio station.

As for the advertising argument: The ad agencies understand listener behavior. The entire reason demographics are important is that an advertiser, wanting to reach a certain type of listener, will buy the 5, 7, maybe 10 top performing stations in that demographic. That ad will be waiting for that listener on their other favorite stations, as well.

The days of KXXX trying to steal advertisers, one by one, from KZZZ, have been gone for about 30 years. The goal now is to be "in on the buy"...to be one of the stations the account buys time on. And if your demographic performance is what it ought to be, you'll be in on most of the buys, which will fill your commercial log and your bank account.

Well if stations weren't so narrow and didn't suck so much, there would be little reason for a listener to go elsewhere - which is the main arguement of the thread - tuneout factor, and this is one of the reasons I tune-out.

Minority? Well ratings are pretty much established using a minority of PPM listeners. Didn't David say that LA's #1 station could be defined by only 15 meters...to believe people lose their job over ratings is sickening.

I have often wondered since this topic started if Oldies could find a happy home on public radio in the same way Jazz and classical do. Ratings don't govern every move, it could be on an FM in a big city (not small AM's like David suggested earlier), jocks are allowed to connect with their listeners, and teach their audience something. PBS does numerous Ed Sullivan specials, Motown Box sets etc. I would love to see both Oldies and Smooth Jazz (another format that got kicked to the curb) appreciated with class and distinction --- two things that the corporates can't do!

You're assuming shared listening is dissatisfaction with whatever stations that person is not listening to at the moment. No. They have multiple favorites. Like back in the day (and I know you're younger, but bear with me) in Los Angeles, when I might choose Lohman and Barkley on KFI to listen to in the morning. Oh, but Geoff Edwards was on KMPC at 9. I didn't switch because KFI sucked, but because I liked both. Jay Stevens was on KKDJ at noon. I tuned in. Not because KMPC and KFI sucked, but because I had another favorite. 3PM? The Real Don Steele on KHJ. And so on (including KBCA, the jazz station, KLOS and KMET for album rock and so on).

What amazes me most about this thread is how many of the guys here can't understand that most people don't want to listen to just one radio station. Especially one that just plays older records. By definition (as David has noted) that's a second-choice format, but done right, it can hold the audience when they tune in for a nice long stretch.

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