I would think that the people in charge at WPLM would use much more common sense, than the other 2 stations, that you have just referred to here.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
And right after the second time, radio laid their hat on it, and has barely left the airwaves ever since!
I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you. f that was the point, then why do so many radio conglomerates test music in a 5 second sample, and asking them "would you be inclined to change the channel if you heard this?"
Well, I don't think WPLM plays any song more than 3-4 times per week, but the answer to the question is Magic 106.7 outspins both ROR and Easy 99.1 with that title....Which doesn't make sense to me
I have to really wonder something here, were you even listening to Boston radio at the time?
BTW, I know fully well how the system works! I come from the perspective of a listener. You seem to be coming from a perspective linear vision programmer instead.
This testing is for current music, and the samples are longer than 5 seconds. They're not asking if someone would start listening to a completely different format outside their normal universe.
You weren't talking about Boston radio, but about conglomerates playing the same songs nationally.
You said: "It seemed like the new collglomorates seemed all pick one centralized playlist of songs."
Where do you say Boston?
It should be obvious that I've worked in multiple formats, so no, not "linear vision." I see things broadly.
It charted higher as a rock song, and yet WBOS isn't playing it at all, and WZLX plays it once a week. Scanning WZLX's artist list in Mediabase, it's pretty obvious to me why they're killing WBOS.
I dunno honestly!
As Radio1992 just pointed out, it is much more of an 80's format type of record. BTW, while it did go #1 Rock on Billboard back in 1986, because MTV never seemed to play the vid-clip to it at all, growing up as a teenager, the song therefore simply did not exist!
FWIW, I am actually surprised that neither of them are giving the song attention at all
Peter Gabriel's Sledgehammer was the #1 video on MTV in 1986. "Big Time" was #4 in 1987. They played "In Your Eyes," but didn't play it as frequently until 1989 when "Say Anything" was out. WZLX doesn't play either of the more popular Gabriel songs.
The reason is likely that it tests very marginally against one station's target and not at all against the other station's target audience.
It does not matter how "big" a hit a song was when it was fresh. What matters is "How much do you want to hear that song on the radio today?".
Looking at the artist list from WBOS, I don't think anyone is testing the music. It's a hodge podge of fringe hair bands and other very marginal music. No wonder they're doing so poorly. They need a playlist doctor to go in and clean things up.
When we did auditorium library music tests where a group of people all heard the same songs at the same time, we used 8 second hooks. That was proven to do two things: it gave time to identify the song and time to register on a dial or a paper form the score. Those tests could do up to about 600 songs in a session before fatigue set in.
Depending on the market, an incentive of between $60 and $150 would be given; the amount depended on the format and the economy of the market. Albuquerque got the lower amount and Long Island or Boston got the highest.
Recruiting does not identify the station. It is "blind" and people are invited, by phone in the past and by phone or email now, if they meet certain criteria such as age, gender, ethnicity and total use of radio. Then, often, they are played 3 to 5 sets of 3 hooks of songs that are within the scope of the station's target. For example, for a classic hits station, one set of three might include a borderline rock tune and two mainstream ones. Another would have a very light ballad that was very AC. And another would represent the core of the station. To be invited to the test, the candidate had to like at least two of the three (or 3 of the five).
For in-person tests in the past, a local recruiter was used... the same kind of recruiting recruiter gets samples for consumer research on cars and laundry detergents, too.
Callout for currents used about 25 to 30 hooks of the same length and the listener scored with the buttons on their phone. The same hook length was employed. Fatigue set in at about 35 songs, so most of us who did research stayed on the safe side, particularly if there were 18-24's in the sample.
Now we do the tests online, although the recruiting is still done personally and with the same specific targets. People are recruited to participate and some kind money or gift card reward is given.
The current song research uses up to 35 or 40 songs in a session. The recurrent / gold research does as many as 600 songs, but in several sessions, perhaps over a week's time; each research company has their own strategy or "feel" for library testing.
The interesting thing is that as soon as a listener scores a song, they get another hook to judge. The hoods can be as long as one wants, but 90% are scored in 6 seconds or less and 95% are scored in 8 seconds. When research is done on the few cases where over 8 seconds is taken, we find that recruits say, "I love that song and I just wanted to hear more of it".
Nobody needs more than 8 seconds to accurately say whether they know the song, used to like it and are burnt out on it or pick a number on a scale to show how much they like it. Each research company has its own scale. I like a "slider" that is labeled from "I hate it" to "I dislike it" to "neither like nor dislike" to "I like it" and "I love it".
I've done well over 1000 music tests with about 100,000 total persons back in the day when we did them in person at meeting rooms, wedding reception centers, church assembly rooms and even school auditoriums and community centers. Many of those I actually moderated as I was training staff. I've spoken with hundreds of people after the test and at breaks when they wanted to ask questions or make comments.
And that is just for music tests. Callout is bit different, and so are one-one-one or focus group perceptuals as well as "big book" format searches and studies about a whole station and competitors.
That's because national media, even going back to music shows by the Big Bands and crooners in the 30's and 40's were done on networks... radio back then and TV now. The big hits in every format have been national going back to the days of sheet music over 100 years ago.
The mistake here is saying "pick". The radio groups don't "pick" the songs. The listeners do. And generally, they like the same songs. Local differences are influenced by the competition, burn on individual songs due to excessive play in the market and other local differences in competitors, the station´s target ages and the like.
And when we do research, we don't play favorites. We just want to see how much listeners in a very specific target group want to hear songs on the radio today.
I think the whole ownership rules in the mid-90s is what did it in for big markets. We essentially have the same corporations owning stations, and the bigger an owner the more it is interested in the bottom line. Share holders, employees, keeping spending low and revenue high. That's the game. So, the goal is to attract the most listeners.
I used to go back and forth with insiders on this board, with my take on 90s songs in the rock format. I said over-played and be more modern. Guys like Big A would reply with a notice that 90s songs are what tested well. Go to today, and the same guys like Big A are pointing out the ratings for stations like WBOS. Are they not keeping up with what they say, just to debate? No. They are following the trends. Their original statement was reflective of the time, and their current statements are reflective of now.
I understand it. My personal perspective is to keep off the hamster wheel. That's why I search for music on multiple platforms. Not that I'm against anything corporate and mainstream. Rather, I prefer to find music I like, especially music you can't just turn on the radio and hear.
I used to go back and forth with insiders on this board, with my take on 90s songs in the rock format. I said over-played and be more modern. Guys like Big A would reply with a notice that 90s songs are what tested well. Go to today, and the same guys like Big A are pointing out the ratings for stations like WBOS. Are they not keeping up with what they say, just to debate? No. They are following the trends. Their original statement was reflective of the time, and their current statements are reflective of now.
I understand it. My personal perspective is to keep off the hamster wheel. That's why I search for music on multiple platforms. Not that I'm against anything corporate and mainstream. Rather, I prefer to find music I like, especially music you can't just turn on the radio and hear.
In the early 70's, Jackson Five and Michael and songs like "Ben" got play on Top 40 and "chicken rock" (what AC was called back in those days). As I mentioned before in another thread, the difference is what you play and the stations in other formats don't.
I won't comment on this, as it is so beautifully said it needs to be framed and put on the wall.
What I will mention is what was on the wall of the PD's office at WPRM in San Juan in the 80's: "The record promoter is not your friend. The record promoter can do you harm" (in Spanish, of course). The record ducks could see it. They knew we were skeptical of their interests which were often not the same as ours. WPRM had double digit shares for the 22 years I managed or consulted it and had more audience than the next two stations combined.
Your statement that "record labels decide" is key to this whole discussion.
There is a lot of mythology about radio ownership before 1996. When you look at radio owners pre-90s, no current radio-only company is bigger than international conglomerates such as GE or RCA or Nationwide Insurance. The biggest group owners in the 70s and 80s were far more top-down in their programming strategies than companies such as Clear Channel. ABC was the biggest group owner before 1996, and they clearly made a decision not to buy more radio stations even though they were allowed to. GE and NBC sold all of their radio properties in 1988. So there really was a change in the type of company that owned radio after 1996.
As I said in my last post, it doesn't appear that WBOS is testing their music. I doubt any kind of science would approve of their current music list. WZLX is far more scientific, and is thus getting better ratings. I don't know anyone at Beasley, but perhaps they're still programming WBOS as a satellite of their station in Detroit. That station is a big success there. Not so much in Boston.
And when companies could have just 7 and 7, how was it different? Public companies like Storer, Rollins, Mooney, Metromedia, all had to optimize every station to make money. Even the privately held companies such as Storz or McLendon or United Broadcasting or Susquehanna had the same focus on making every station profitable.
But changes in regulations like Docket 80-90 expanded the number of stations in nearly all the markets and made it harder to make money and much harder to do things like local news coverage and community events. This was not radio's fault; this was done by the gumm'int and it hurt the industry very badly.
False argument. You can't compare the situation 10 years ago with today because what we play today is what people what to hear today. How the song charted a decade or more ago is irrelevant.
And, back in the 50's, there were plenty of songs I like that they did not "play enough" on the radio so I bought the 45's. The only thing that has changed is the distribution method.
We don't ask that question.
We ask "how much (or little) do you want to hear that song on the radio today?".
We are not asking about changing the station. We are asking about the song, not the station.
The big change with Michael came with his move to Columbia and his work with Quincy Jones. They came up with music that appealed to everyone and every format. Songs like Beat It appealed to rock stations because of the Eddie Van Halen guitar solo. Rock With Me was pure pop. Don't Stop Til You Get Enough was post-disco dance music. Brilliantly produced records.
Frank Dileo was head of promotion at Columbia, and he went on to manage Michael. Frank was a brilliant music strategist.
- Status