Who do you think does the best CHR imaging?

[beantownradio25]

As far as CHR imaging, whos best in your opinion?

 

[acesup]

That is a tough question because "best" means different things to different people. But, to me, you can't mess with people like Dave Foxx, KellyKellyKelly, Steve Sykes, Nick Daley, or Freddy Cruz. Of that group, it's a very tough pick, but I'd have to go with Dave Foxx.

 

[whit979]

I'm a big fan of Dave Kampel.

 

[Mid West Clubber]

Mitch Craig...

 

[beantownradio25]

Mitch Craig...

Definately

His name escapes me but the man who voices stations such as PRO-FM in Providence, WGIR-FM in Manchester and WMUR-TV in Manchester (outlets in my neck of the woods, many more throughout the country) would be on my list. His name escapes me, can anyone help me?

 

[alans613]

Don't know his last name, but what about Jude out of NYC that does imaging for Q102 in Cincinnati? He also used to do the imaging for WGTZ back in 2001, back when they were CHR as Z-93 and he also did work for WBNS-FM when they were Hot AC as Mix 97.1.

 

[Slinky]

I'm probably biased because I think the world revolves around Z100, but i have to say Dave Foxx.

 

[Roger That]

This is like a thread full of answers from 1999, not 2009. LOL

Legends, all, but wake me when someone does something that listeners don't just perceive as noise.

 

[watza222]

i like kbks's imaging in seattle. i havent really heard the same imaging on a different station.

 

[Roger That]

This is like a thread full of answers from 1999, not 2009. LOL

Legends, all, but wake me when someone does something that listeners don't just perceive as noise.

So automation rolling cold from songs into songs, songs into spots, and from spots back into songs is better?

While it's easy to immediately go to the extreme and say that "I must think all imaging is bad," that's not even remotely what I'm saying.

My point is, the majority of the imaging on your radio station is hurting, not helping you. We've over-hyped, over-sold, and over-commercialized our radio stations to death. We need to use imaging to COMMUNICATE with the audience, not yell at them.

Have a girlfriend or wife? Ever gotten anywhere by screaming at them? Meanwhile, we think it's cool to load up on promos full of huge-voice VO guys, spouting language that's cliche and that people don't use, and surround it with sound effects that, when listened to in a car radio, practically make the copy unintelligible anyway. All of this directed at the same demo that your wife or girlfriend fall into.

Yes, you should do less imaging overall, and the pieces you do use should be less lengthy. After all, your audience hears them as commercials. Commercials for your radio station, of course, but commercials nonetheless. If given the choice to take off some sales commercial avails, you'd do it, wouldn't you??

More importantly, the HOW is what needs to be reinvented when producing imaging, something that the names mentioned in this thread are not revolutionizing.

 

[El Grecko]

This is like a thread full of answers from 1999, not 2009. LOL

Legends, all, but wake me when someone does something that listeners don't just perceive as noise.

So automation rolling cold from songs into songs, songs into spots, and from spots back into songs is better?

I agree. Let's make listeners think they're listening to their ipod. God knows we wouldn't want to offend them with a piece of imaging, or a jock saying the call letters....the listener might think it's a commercial.

My point is, the majority of the imaging on your radio station is hurting, not helping you. We've over-hyped, over-sold, and over-commercialized our radio stations to death. We need to use imaging to COMMUNICATE with the audience, not yell at them.

Yes, you should do less imaging overall, and the pieces you do use should be less lengthy. After all, your audience hears them as commercials. Commercials for your radio station, of course, but commercials nonetheless.

That sounds like it came straight out of the Clear Channel playbook.

I remember when they came down with the verdict that imaging and big voice guys are bad. But I always wondered if that was really a conspiracy, so that CC could cut costs for imaging and voice guys from their budgets? ;D Did anyone really see the results of that auditorium test?... Or did some Programming VP tell you that imaging and big voice guys are bad, and everybody just nodded their head and said "We Agree!"

Seriously, we probably did go overboard with much of the imaging. But to think that anytime a listener hears the calls, he might turn the station because he perceives it as a commercial, (so let's just dry segue), is a bit extreme as well.

Moderation is the key, but if I want to listen to my ipod, then I'll listen to my ipod. Scaling it too far back has made many stations bland & boring sounding, Imo.

 

[Roger That]

Did anyone really see the results of that auditorium test?... Or did some Programming VP tell you that imaging and big voice guys are bad, and everybody just nodded their head and said "We Agree!"

The results of the tests (multiple) that were conducted by Clear Channel were made available to all programmers at the PD/OM meetings in Fall 2007. Many, many people saw the results.

Seriously, we probably did go overboard with much of the imaging. But to think that anytime a listener hears the calls, he might turn the station because he perceives it as a commercial, (so let's just dry segue), is a bit extreme as well.

Moderation is the key, but if I want to listen to my ipod, then I'll listen to my ipod. Scaling it too far back has made many stations bland & boring sounding, Imo.

Funny how, when an individual believes in something, as I do in this, it immediately gives people an opportunity to whine about how evil Faceless Corporate Radio is, even if I'm not that. You're welcome to cherry-pick only parts of what I say to claim corporate rhetoric, but if you read all of what I wrote, in context, you'll see that we agree on these points, as evidenced by the fact that I LED with the following sentence in my response to wootvictory: "While it's easy to immediately go to the extreme and say that 'I must think all imaging is bad,' that's not even remotely what I'm saying." (and then proceeded to explain my point further)

I AGREE that moderation is the key, but so is reinvention of how. Stop doing things like it's still the 1980's. Losing the big voice guy doesn't mean lose ALL voice guys. Just find one that relates to your audience better. How is that such a bad idea? Making things easier for your audience to relate to should be LAUDED by the majority here, considering how much you cry about "live and local." What's local about having the same voice guy as 40 other CHR stations?

Believe it or not, we're actually on the same side here.