-
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
Why is WYSP so boring?
- Thread starter phils07
- Start date
M
mcradiofree
Guest
I would never say never. It would probably already be there if not for the last failure of taking YSP talk. Having said that, I believe YSP's only function these days, is to keep MGK from scoring bigger than OGL. They have a new morning show producer who worked with O and A previously, hopefully he can do something to make people actually want to listen to Danny, but I doubt it. Preston and Steve are funny most of the time and have a strong connect to their audience. I feel like I want to like Danny, but there's just nothing there except a few rants.
M
mcradiofree
Guest
Not sure, didn't catch the name. Like I said, I like Danny, but there is a disconnect that I can't put my finger on. Maybe he just needs better clock management. Some of the bits are good, but not enough to stay tuned. Too much hair band music in between. I would think he would have pretty good access to celebs, but you can't tell. The "rock and roll you grew up with" is a cumbersome moniker as well. It's a shame really.
M
mcradiofree
Guest
Yeah my bad, the roll isn't in there. That being the case, it's still cumbersome because it doesn't say anything. What does that mean exactly? The rock may have been around at the time, but it's not what I grew up with. And by the looks of the ratings, I am not alone. That station could be a giant if it took a new course. There is a gaping hole in this market for a certain format that no one is touching. I'm not saying what I would do. Andy Bloom is a genius in my book, and if anyone had an answer, it's him. That's why I believe YSP's place is to protect OGL. Be that as it may, I still believe even if they stick with the current playlist, they should change the moniker.
I
imhomerjay
Guest
And evidence that "most" people are tired of the OGL music, aside from personal anecdote, would be.....???
Well, if the ratings are actually representative of the market, 94.2% of those within the Philadelphia metro with a radio on don't have it tuned to 98.1... and that doesn't even account for the people who don't have a radio on. Of course, they're doing the best that they can in serving a lowest common denominator audience.imhomerjay said:
Some here apparently don't understand that radio's revenue model requires a dumbed-down product in order to survive. There are plenty of sources of entertainment that don't operate in lowest common denominator mode, and those who are confused about how radio operates should avail themselves of other options and stop expecting radio to become something it can't be.
Or tune below 92.1 MHz.
True, Musichead, although I think that could be amplified to 'what radio will not allow itself to be'. The cluster arrangement is just the more chronic of the recent asterisks put on mass-appeal programming.
Before those shackles, only-games-in-town started programming to a group of people in an auditorium rather than to anyone with a foreground radio sttention span.
Neither of those practices are going to be discarded soon.
Back in the days when the actual pioneers made the music available, radio rivals used different playlists, jingles and approaches to illuminate their product. WFIL-WIBG, WDRC-WPOP, WABC-WMCA, WGH-WNOR -- the national list contained dozens of rivals. And yes, the recordbuyers back then were far more active and involved. Currently in their 50s and 60s, they could care less about countdowns of any sort. There are no more 'battles of the bands' between stations for these people, even the most active senior in the bunch.
Heck -- in 2011, even the AoR crowd from back then are grandparent age.
So it's no longer the decision of either generation as to what gets put on the nostalgia playlist. These castoffs will listen to the nearest approximation of their youth. Enough of them are responding to keep the bills paid at Classic Rockers and Greatest Hits museums.
But these places are the only games in town. And the remaining listeners are not responding to their own tastes or their own memories anymore. They're reacting to a Time-Life compilation that was pre-packaged by complete strangers, chronological and social.
It might be said, of a galvanized position for the radio and ex-radio people on these great forums, that one of their standards is that they will not in any way tolerate someone else's success. Radio life has gone on without many of them (and I'm one) . The exodus to the Internet, though, remains a continuing, daily rebuke that terrestrial radio's approach to nostalgia can be done better. This attention to the older demo for sales purposes -- a recent 'revelation' -- will have to be handled differently, in order to increase the size of the target older audience and make whatever inefficiencies less noticeable through sheer volume. The auditorium-test strategies were successful, but for a different generation. If there's an earnest consideration to reaching this 'new' crowd to join and support the fold -- I don't see that there's any choice, really -- then it'll have to be done by something other than using the same sermon every week before the exact same congregation.
Before those shackles, only-games-in-town started programming to a group of people in an auditorium rather than to anyone with a foreground radio sttention span.
Neither of those practices are going to be discarded soon.
Back in the days when the actual pioneers made the music available, radio rivals used different playlists, jingles and approaches to illuminate their product. WFIL-WIBG, WDRC-WPOP, WABC-WMCA, WGH-WNOR -- the national list contained dozens of rivals. And yes, the recordbuyers back then were far more active and involved. Currently in their 50s and 60s, they could care less about countdowns of any sort. There are no more 'battles of the bands' between stations for these people, even the most active senior in the bunch.
Heck -- in 2011, even the AoR crowd from back then are grandparent age.
So it's no longer the decision of either generation as to what gets put on the nostalgia playlist. These castoffs will listen to the nearest approximation of their youth. Enough of them are responding to keep the bills paid at Classic Rockers and Greatest Hits museums.
But these places are the only games in town. And the remaining listeners are not responding to their own tastes or their own memories anymore. They're reacting to a Time-Life compilation that was pre-packaged by complete strangers, chronological and social.
It might be said, of a galvanized position for the radio and ex-radio people on these great forums, that one of their standards is that they will not in any way tolerate someone else's success. Radio life has gone on without many of them (and I'm one) . The exodus to the Internet, though, remains a continuing, daily rebuke that terrestrial radio's approach to nostalgia can be done better. This attention to the older demo for sales purposes -- a recent 'revelation' -- will have to be handled differently, in order to increase the size of the target older audience and make whatever inefficiencies less noticeable through sheer volume. The auditorium-test strategies were successful, but for a different generation. If there's an earnest consideration to reaching this 'new' crowd to join and support the fold -- I don't see that there's any choice, really -- then it'll have to be done by something other than using the same sermon every week before the exact same congregation.
The "Why is [insert terrestrial station] so boring?" question could be asked for 99.9% of the stations in the nation. And the lowest-common-denominator answer offered above will always be the same.
My first instinct when reading the "deserted island" comment was, "If that's terrestrial radio's new business model then the industry's more screwed than even I thought it was." But in reality, that's not only what it is-- but what it's been for some time now. The only ones still counting on these dinosaurs to entertain them musically are the ones who are either not financially in a position to adopt better, more variety-embracing platforms-- or people who just don't care enough (i.e. easily amused). There's nothing wrong with either; it "is what it is."
After nearly 15 years of looking-in on radio message boards, I find it mind-boggling that so many participants still don't understand how this stuff works. "Lowest common denominator" may sound negative-- and in this respect it kind of is-- but it's one of the few remaining things terrestrial radio does that makes any kind of business sense.
Things are, however, changing. And they're changing faster than terrestrial radio will be able to handle.
As someone who has played records every night for a living (for a long time), I have been astounded to see how different music tastes and music consumption is now compared with just a few years ago. The lowest common denominator method of programming used to work for mobile, club, and bar DJs as well. This is no longer the case. The Internet has changed everything; it is very difficult to please a crowd these days. "Hitting the spot by spotting the hits" used to be a fail-safe that would please almost everyone with relative satisfaction. Now, with a few exceptions, everybody likes something different. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. But it is different. If terrestrial radio thinks it'll be immune to this permanent shift it's once again fooling itself.
As Musichead pointed out, some 94% of Philadelphia radio listeners aren't listening to WOGL-- one of the market's most listened-to stations-- with any regularity. Of course, the longtime terrestrial business model has allowed for a station with a six-share to be considered very successful. Soon however, the real story will be, "six percent of what?" Who are in the six percent? Well, today's WOGL listener is generally part of the same crowd that I've worked with for years. Hard-working, good people who week-in, week-out ask me to play obscure, underplayed gems like "Sweet Caroline", "Sweet Home Alabama", and "Brown-Eyed Girl"-- and get all excited when the tunes come on. Over, and over, and over again. A slightly younger crowd? Maybe they listened to WMGK or "Ben FM." And they ask for "Livin' On A Prayer", "Summer of '69", and "Jessie's Girl." Over and over, and over again. Wedding receptions? It was the Electric Slide, Chicken Dance, "We Are Family", etc. Doesn't matter to me. The fact that I want to vomit is inconsequential. I'm doing my job, making people happy by playing music-- and they think I'm great. These great people-- who have kept me in business for a while-- are the ones who listen to what's left of terrestrial radio.
They're now fading away.
The ones who used to love me for playing the "Bristol Stomp" and "Runaround Sue" rarely come out anymore. Sadly, some have passed away. The younger ones are older too, and now have families and other lives of their own. What's left are younger folks, in their 20s and 30s. Half of the songs they ask for I've never even heard of a lot of the time. (**They** are actually turning **me** on to some good stuff; it used to be the other way around.) Others don't really request songs at all anymore, because the novelty of having a DJ play "their song" is a thing of the past. They can play it whenever they want-- at home, in the car-- or right in the parking lot via their phones.
Oh, and to these younger people-- folks I interact with every night at a variety of places-- regular, AM/FM radio is about as unsexy a technology or medium as one could even imagine.
I used to be able to come up with a few song suggestions by simply asking, "What radio station do you listen to?" Now, the answer more times than not is, "I don't listen to radio."
So the "Greatest Hits of the '60s & '70s" or the "Rock You Grew Up With" may work for a few more years. It'll put some asses in the seats for the time being. But beyond that, terrestrial radio had better have some kind of a game plan. And a sloppy simulcast of an already lousy product online or via some phantom "HD" channel is not a "digital solution."
My first instinct when reading the "deserted island" comment was, "If that's terrestrial radio's new business model then the industry's more screwed than even I thought it was." But in reality, that's not only what it is-- but what it's been for some time now. The only ones still counting on these dinosaurs to entertain them musically are the ones who are either not financially in a position to adopt better, more variety-embracing platforms-- or people who just don't care enough (i.e. easily amused). There's nothing wrong with either; it "is what it is."
After nearly 15 years of looking-in on radio message boards, I find it mind-boggling that so many participants still don't understand how this stuff works. "Lowest common denominator" may sound negative-- and in this respect it kind of is-- but it's one of the few remaining things terrestrial radio does that makes any kind of business sense.
Things are, however, changing. And they're changing faster than terrestrial radio will be able to handle.
As someone who has played records every night for a living (for a long time), I have been astounded to see how different music tastes and music consumption is now compared with just a few years ago. The lowest common denominator method of programming used to work for mobile, club, and bar DJs as well. This is no longer the case. The Internet has changed everything; it is very difficult to please a crowd these days. "Hitting the spot by spotting the hits" used to be a fail-safe that would please almost everyone with relative satisfaction. Now, with a few exceptions, everybody likes something different. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. But it is different. If terrestrial radio thinks it'll be immune to this permanent shift it's once again fooling itself.
As Musichead pointed out, some 94% of Philadelphia radio listeners aren't listening to WOGL-- one of the market's most listened-to stations-- with any regularity. Of course, the longtime terrestrial business model has allowed for a station with a six-share to be considered very successful. Soon however, the real story will be, "six percent of what?" Who are in the six percent? Well, today's WOGL listener is generally part of the same crowd that I've worked with for years. Hard-working, good people who week-in, week-out ask me to play obscure, underplayed gems like "Sweet Caroline", "Sweet Home Alabama", and "Brown-Eyed Girl"-- and get all excited when the tunes come on. Over, and over, and over again. A slightly younger crowd? Maybe they listened to WMGK or "Ben FM." And they ask for "Livin' On A Prayer", "Summer of '69", and "Jessie's Girl." Over and over, and over again. Wedding receptions? It was the Electric Slide, Chicken Dance, "We Are Family", etc. Doesn't matter to me. The fact that I want to vomit is inconsequential. I'm doing my job, making people happy by playing music-- and they think I'm great. These great people-- who have kept me in business for a while-- are the ones who listen to what's left of terrestrial radio.
They're now fading away.
The ones who used to love me for playing the "Bristol Stomp" and "Runaround Sue" rarely come out anymore. Sadly, some have passed away. The younger ones are older too, and now have families and other lives of their own. What's left are younger folks, in their 20s and 30s. Half of the songs they ask for I've never even heard of a lot of the time. (**They** are actually turning **me** on to some good stuff; it used to be the other way around.) Others don't really request songs at all anymore, because the novelty of having a DJ play "their song" is a thing of the past. They can play it whenever they want-- at home, in the car-- or right in the parking lot via their phones.
Oh, and to these younger people-- folks I interact with every night at a variety of places-- regular, AM/FM radio is about as unsexy a technology or medium as one could even imagine.
I used to be able to come up with a few song suggestions by simply asking, "What radio station do you listen to?" Now, the answer more times than not is, "I don't listen to radio."
So the "Greatest Hits of the '60s & '70s" or the "Rock You Grew Up With" may work for a few more years. It'll put some asses in the seats for the time being. But beyond that, terrestrial radio had better have some kind of a game plan. And a sloppy simulcast of an already lousy product online or via some phantom "HD" channel is not a "digital solution."
True that.
Read the above and grasp it.
Read the above and grasp it.
- Status