If WROR didn't drop Little Steven's underground garage, you may have heard Elmore James there
-
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
But this board is for discussion of radio as it is, not as some listeners wish it were. There's no "value" in bringing up again and again that WROR isnt playing as many Bob Seger titles as you think it should because you loved "Fire Lake" more than "Old Time Rock and Roll" or because you played "Ramblin' Gamblin' Man" to your 13-year-old grandson and he loved it -- worded differently and using other artists and songs, but essentially making the same irrelevant point. The pros explain each time that radio isn't a museum, that the music is something to keep the maximum number of listeners pleased enough to keep listening during the ads, that playing songs that drive away an unacceptable number of the listeners the advertisers want to reach isn't the way to attract or retain advertisers or listeners. And each time, the explanation is either rejected outright or challenged anew through tortured logic or apple-to-oranges comparisons ("But it works in Podunk. Shouldn't it work in New York City?")
I've never worked in radio, but I know there are assumptions people have always had about how newspapers (my chosen field) operate and that I've had to explain many times, only to hear the same assumptions voiced over and over again. So I can understand where the radio pros here are coming from and why they get frustrated at times. At some point, the realization sets in that some people will never accept reality.
It's one listener's perspective, and they're awarded their share their perspective. At the end of the day, radio without the listener is an over-glorified AV club. The same as radio without the insider is nothing more than a hobby with sub-par standards.
The listener is the final product. It's like working at a store and talking down to the customer. Sure many of them are arrogant, misinformed, or outright fools; but to dismiss the customer is bad for longevity of the store. The same as if the faculty at a school ignored the students' perspectives.
The listener needs to also understand that their perspective is simply one perspective. For people like me, who rather go against the norm of what the radio and music companies tell me I rather be listening to, it's an accepted understanding. But others might not see it that way. "My five friends and I like Neil Young's experimental music more than Rockin' In The Free World, so why isn't WZLX playing that more." Well, you and your five friends don't speak for all.
I have my hard stance on modern rock, and it's based my observation that little from 2015 forward got much airplay in this market (Boston), relying on 90s Alt-Rock. Insiders and I have gone back and forth for years about that. That doesn't value or devalue my perspective or observation. It simply adds a thought to the discussion.
Where I agree with you is the over emphasis on the Bob Seger point. I don't fault the poster from bringing it up. But unless it's a discussion that evolves, to just keep requesting WROR to play a particular song more is just redundant.
I also agree that people without knowledge of the inner workings shouldn't be denouncing something that they don't fully grasp. But again, that all goes back to my take on the employee vs the customer, or the faculty vs the student. You need your newspaper subscribers, the same as the faculty needs the students, the employee needs their customers, and the insiders need the listeners. It needs to be a give and take looking at each voice as an individual voice.
I close with my previous statement that this is a thread designed on subjectivity. "Who's doing good" (which should have been questioned as "well") can be measured on so many metrics. Qualitatively, it becomes a question of taste. Musically, I'm not a fan of much Boston radio these days, because my musical tastes aren't showing to be viable in this market. Quantitatively, are we going by listeners? Ad sales? Cost to run the station? So, it opens the door to say "I wish WROR played Fire Lake more than Old Time Rock and Roll." Just that once the point is made, and people explain the reasoning, either add something new to the discussion or move on. I find it harder to add new to simply requesting a particular song, over a discussion like why does WBZ-FM draw better ratings than WEEI-FM.
Last edited:
The customer is the person who pays. That would be the advertiser. If you subscribe to Sirius or are a member of a public radio station, then you are the customer.
I stand corrected. However, what is the customer paying for? They are paying for listener's ears. Therefore, without the listeners, my original observation is still accurate. Might need a better analogy, but the point remains valid. The listener is the endgame. You might be focused on ad revenue, but without the listener, your customers aren't your customers.
But the relationship is very different, as are the obligations. As WROR proves, a station can get the largest share of listeners without playing a lot of things that you might want. "The listener" is an ambiguous thing. It can be someone who demands large playlists, or it can be someone who is happy with what they're hearing now.
Where I see your point here, I admit that I'm looking at it from an absolute perspective. If the listeners absolutely walk away, the station dries up. Therefore, their perspective (as a whole population) holds weight. The individual doesn't hold it as strongly. If everyone takes issue with R-Kelly, Hot and Jamin are going to not play R-Kelly. If three people don't like Lady Gaga, then three listeners really don't matter.
That was the main thing I was driving home. With a population the size of the Boston market, it will be near impossible to have an absolute situation. I recognize that. However, if the idea is "we're insiders and this is why you are dead wrong;" there is a possibility of turning off potential listeners. If that number grew to a substantial number of disenfranchised listeners who walk away, that is bad for buisness. Possible, but I would say not probable. That's not to say that you shouldn't disagree. It's the presentation of how one disagrees that causes the divide.
How many listeners ever interact with programming personnel at their local radio stations at all?
Music taste is an individual thing. As you say, it's not an absolute that everyone agrees with. The other thing is passion. How many people are SO passionate in their music taste that they simply won't listen to a mass appeal radio station? From our surveys, it's less than 10%. So a radio station factors in that group as not interested in what they're playing, and instead focuses on the other 90%.
And, some years ago, when 94% of all persons used radio weekly, Arbitron studied those that did not listen at all in a one-week diary period. They found that about three-quarters of them had issues like travel, an illness or hospitalization, a family or personal emergency or things like "I was studying for my finals" or "I was going through a divorce". In other words, most who did not listen were radio users, but just unable to listen during the survey week.
BigA answered your overall concerns. But one point needs to be emphasized which is that radio does not and can not program to each individual person separately.
Radio programs by consensus; there are songs you like that most other people in your general music preference area do not like. So radio skips that song, as it does more collective harm than good to the overall station.
We find, in music research, many songs that are very polarized... one group loves them, another hates them and the rest just tolerate them. We can't play those songs, and we know this by experience. Some of us have seen ratings increase when we first did research and cleaned those songs out. Others of us in programming have seen stations crash and burn when they thought they could beat us with a bigger playlist and ended up playing a highly negative song five or six times an hour.
That, in fact, is the issue with Alt today: there is little consensus among those who say the like Alternative rock. Some like one set of songs and artists, other like another set, and often each rejects the favorites of the other.
This goes back to what I was saying about the customer. Radio stations don't require personal information from listeners. No user name and password. No credit card number. For the most part, they don't know specific details about each listener's personal music taste. They're just aiming at a big target audience. That target doesn't have to be every person who fits that description. One person is as good as another, and they all count the same.
As many as are here. That was an easy question. Still speaking from a theoretical perspective. I openly admit that.
I said that radio can't program to the individual. I made that clear in my previous posts. My point is that an individual voice shouldn't be dismissed as not being valid just because it's an individual voice. It should be seen as one person's perspective or theory. However, I never said to program to the individual. I'll pull my statements and edit them in. I think people are making a misassumption of what I was stating.
Here's what I original wrote this morning.
The listener needs to also understand that their perspective is simply one perspective. For people like me, who rather go against the norm of what the radio and music companies tell me I rather be listening to, it's an accepted understanding. But others might not see it that way. "My five friends and I like Neil Young's experimental music more than Rockin' In The Free World, so why isn't WZLX playing that more." Well, you and your five friends don't speak for all.
And here's part of a reply to BigA
If everyone takes issue with R-Kelly, Hot and Jamin are going to not play R-Kelly. If three people don't like Lady Gaga, then three listeners really don't matter.
We agree on all that you state here. I believe that I'm being misinterpreted as saying that insiders should take everything a listener says as "gospel." Far from. What I have been saying is that the listener's voice shouldn't just be dismissed. It should be debated with data, because the listener may be ahead of the curve, simply misinformed, spot on, or a fool. See what they are saying, then tell them why it won't currently work. 😆
Last edited:
Absolutely agree with this.
My statements haven't debated any of this. It was more that insiders and listeners need each other equally. The listener who is clueless to the inner workings needs the insider to make the operation work. However, without the listener, there isn't an operation.
But to program to only my likes or anyone else's is anything but a sound business model. I never said otherwise. We cam agree to that, yet understand that listeners can still add their perspective. I would love an all Blues station (not kidding). Was quite said when WZLX-HD2 was flipped. That doesn't mean I expect an all Blues station. It's me adding to the suggestion box. Your end gets to read the suggestion and decide whether or not it adds anything to the data. More likely, my suggestion is an outlier, so obviously nobody is running to program to my preference. There's a way which you all say "data doesn't support that." That is all fine. The discussion came that presentation from one of listeners on the board, who sympothesized with the insiders, based on some other listeners' posts.
What you're saying is the individual voice only really matters to that individual. Which is why it gets dismissed.
Whether or not it's "valid" is unimportant to everyone except that individual. And it doesn't change how a radio station gets programmed. I understand existentialism as much as anyone. It just doesn't affect me doing my job.
I don't share that philosophy. I can make a point that's valid, yet people might not agree with it. The same as you can. In the industry of which I work, it would be a death nail to my career to ignore the individual voice. Again, it's not absolute. However, sometimes with data, an outside set of eyes can help.
Let's be honest, the data didn't agree with me years ago when I beat my drum about the 90s songs. Now, it's somewhat beginning to align. Perhaps, the voice could have a point and is being the canary in the coal mine. That's all I'm saying.
We live in a world where the majority rules. So you can make a point that's valid for you, and I might even agree with it, but it still has no use in my job. It's a bigger philosophical issue here. Your job isn't to convince ME of your view, but to convince everyone else to join you. Then radio will take notice of the mass.
That's what recording artists do. They make music that appeals to them. Then they perform it for others. The audience either likes it or they don't. If a huge mass of people like it, then it's a hit, and gets played on the radio.
I enjoy "Fire Lake" on my Spotify playlist, where it belongs.
We also live in a world where the majority can be absolutely incorrect (not speaking of radio specifically). Therefore, I still choose to be a sitiationalist, and defend my perspective in this friendly debate. I apply my conceptual thinking to everything in life, so admit that I'm now speaking beyond radio in this post.
- Status