Will 25-54 Myopia Kill Radio? By Fred Jabobs

[OldiesCat]

Re: 25-54

Correct. It's called being topical and relevant. Any monkey can just intro songs and do station remote liners. Great talent reflect the interests of their audience.

So what if a song "hit #1 on this date in 1965" or "happy 73rd birthday to Jerry Lee Lewis" and "here's your top 5 from February 21 1966"? Y-A-W-N!
It's been drilled into listeners for over 20 years.
>
> OR, if you're programming to 50+ maybe you should be talking
> about Dancing With The Stars, Skating With the Stars, Larry
> King, and Jay Leno.
>

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

Re: 25-54

> Thrillseekers, What Do We Know and Believe on a Fractious
> Friday Afternoon????

TINA DELGADO IS ALIVE...ALIVE!!!!

As the Phil Upchurch Combo fades out and Bill Drake intones...

"And NOW ladies and gentlemen, Humble Harve" [aca jingle] KHJ Los Angelesssss...

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

Re: 25-54

> But few can effecively pull off what you're suggesting.
> Besides, the "fast in & out" is what makes so much radio
> just "noise".
>
> Do we just want disc jockeys or do we prefer personalities
> with charisma, character who connect with their listeners?
> I'd put my dough on the latter.

I want disc jockeys who have charisma, character, and connect with their listeners. You don't even need to be "of age" to be same...just be able to connect.

Nowadays, personalities in all of major market/large market radio seem to be as distant as the moon. Let they still talk and talk and talk, making themselves even farther and farther away. And yet, PDs aren't correcting this crap.

 

[OldiesCat]

oldies DJs

As has been discussed before, many of today's Programmers have neither the experience nor the courage to effectively coach and guide their talent. It's becoming a lost art.

>
> I want disc jockeys who have charisma, character, and
> connect with their listeners. You don't even need to be "of
> age" to be same...just be able to connect.
>
> Nowadays, personalities in all of major market/large market
> radio seem to be as distant as the moon. Let they still
> talk and talk and talk, making themselves even farther and
> farther away. And yet, PDs aren't correcting this crap.
>

 

[Oldbones]

Re: production

> But WHY? Who says a station won't be energetic and
> entertaining if it has the occasional (2-3x per hour) a dry
> segue? Why this format-blinders mindset?
>


I wouldn't call it "format blindness" as much as I'd say personal taste & trying to attract the people who liked the music (and presentation) back in "the day". I never liked cold segues anyway...as I said before, it sort of worked with AOR back in the day, and might work on AAA today, but not on what should be an uptempo, energetic format like oldies. Oldies is a format for people who grew up with fast-paced Top 40, not stoner radio...using a laid back approach makes as much sense as having a fast-talkin' motormouth jock hitting the post doing classic rock.


> It's so ironic- many on these boards are kicking and
> screaming NOT to do assembly-line, cookie-cutter radio.
> But, when a new or different concept is floated it's
> dismissed because of the "we've always done it that way" or
> the
> "but we can't do THAT in THIS format!" cry.
>
> We've beaten listeners up for decades with over-produced
> radio. To what end?

Posters on these boards kick and scream about everything...I've never heard a non-radio person refer to radio as "assembly line" or "cookie cutter".

 

[Oldbones]

Re: oldies DJs

To be fair, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of PDs I've had over the years who spent any time coaching & guiding the talent. This is not a new phenomenon.

I had one PD who got very upset when I went outside the company to have my air work critiqued, yet he never seemed to have the time or interest in doing it himself.


> As has been discussed before, many of today's Programmers
> have neither the experience nor the courage to effectively
> coach and guide their talent. It's becoming a lost art.
>
> >
> > I want disc jockeys who have charisma, character, and
> > connect with their listeners. You don't even need to be
> "of
> > age" to be same...just be able to connect.
> >
> > Nowadays, personalities in all of major market/large
> market
> > radio seem to be as distant as the moon. Let they still
> > talk and talk and talk, making themselves even farther and
>
> > farther away. And yet, PDs aren't correcting this crap.
> >
>

 

[OldiesCat]

production

You've almost maid my point, though. This "back in the day" stuff- why is it so difficult to understand that it's THE MUSIC (and always has been in Oldies) that gives the nostalgic kick. Nobody ever said to put "stoner radio" on.

Dry segues help stations breathe- if their product is memorable and compelling, you don't need to cram your calls down their throats a hundred times an hour.
Dry segues (no more than 2-3 an hour) also do not in any take away from the tempo and excitement of the presentation. Insisting they don't belong on an Oldies station is indeed "format blindness". And I say that knowing most Oldies Programmers stuck in the way it was done in "the day" can't and won't try to understand that. It's not a matter of OUR personal taste that should drive how we produce our stations- how 'bout thinking of the listeners first for a change?


>
> I wouldn't call it "format blindness" as much as I'd say
> personal taste & trying to attract the people who liked the
> music (and presentation) back in "the day". I never liked
> cold segues anyway...as I said before, it sort of worked
> with AOR back in the day, and might work on AAA today, but
> not on what should be an uptempo, energetic format like
> oldies. Oldies is a format for people who grew up with
> fast-paced Top 40, not stoner radio...using a laid back
> approach makes as much sense as having a fast-talkin'
> motormouth jock hitting the post doing classic rock.
>
>
> > It's so ironic- many on these boards are kicking and
> > screaming NOT to do assembly-line, cookie-cutter radio.
> > But, when a new or different concept is floated it's
> > dismissed because of the "we've always done it that way"
> or
> > the
> > "but we can't do THAT in THIS format!" cry.
> >
> > We've beaten listeners up for decades with over-produced
> > radio. To what end?
>
> Posters on these boards kick and scream about
> everything...I've never heard a non-radio person refer to
> radio as "assembly line" or "cookie cutter".
>

 

[gregdymon]

Re: oldies DJs

> To be fair, I can count on the fingers of one hand the
> number of PDs I've had over the years who spent any time
> coaching & guiding the talent. This is not a new
> phenomenon.
>
> I had one PD who got very upset when I went outside the
> company to have my air work critiqued, yet he never seemed
> to have the time or interest in doing it himself.

You can count at least ONE more than I ever knew. But, like you, when I went outside for critique, I got my chops busted everytime. It was almost (not quite, but almost) like they didn't want me to improve, cause then they'd either:
1. Have to pay me more, or they might
2. Lose me to a competitor who saw my potential and hire me out from under him, or
3. Have to move me to a better time slot, which might (gasp) include the PD's show, OR
4. Make the company management wonder aloud why is ____ improving and no one else on the station is? thereby leading to some research to find out who is working on announcer development in their station only to discover it wasn't the PD they were paying to do the job.

That's at least what I used to think when I was doing an on air shift.

 

[OldiesCat]

oldies DJs

Imagine if you put all that time and effort into getting better, being more valuable AND perhaps moving into a bigger market. That air shift might have improved a lot.

Anytime I hear a jock say something like "maybe they didn't want me to improve" it's almost always a sign that the jock couldn't/wouldn't do what it took to just be great. If you work for somebody you truly, honestly believe doesn't want you to get better so you won't leave, you're working at the wrong station for the wrong PD.

>
> You can count at least ONE more than I ever knew. But, like
> you, when I went outside for critique, I got my chops busted
> everytime. It was almost (not quite, but almost) like they
> didn't want me to improve, cause then they'd either:
> 1. Have to pay me more, or they might
> 2. Lose me to a competitor who saw my potential and hire me
> out from under him, or
> 3. Have to move me to a better time slot, which might (gasp)
> include the PD's show, OR
> 4. Make the company management wonder aloud why is ____
> improving and no one else on the station is? thereby leading
> to some research to find out who is working on announcer
> development in their station only to discover it wasn't the
> PD they were paying to do the job.
>
> That's at least what I used to think when I was doing an on
> air shift.
>

 

[OldiesCat]

oldies DJs

Then you were working for the wrong PDs.

> To be fair, I can count on the fingers of one hand the
> number of PDs I've had over the years who spent any time
> coaching & guiding the talent. This is not a new
> phenomenon.
>
> I had one PD who got very upset when I went outside the
> company to have my air work critiqued, yet he never seemed
> to have the time or interest in doing it himself.
>
>
> > As has been discussed before, many of today's Programmers
> > have neither the experience nor the courage to effectively
> > coach and guide their talent. It's becoming a lost art.
> > >
> > > I want disc jockeys who have charisma, character, and
> > > connect with their listeners. You don't even need to be "of
> > > age" to be same...just be able to connect.
> > >
> > > Nowadays, personalities in all of major market/large
> > market
> > > radio seem to be as distant as the moon. Let they still
>
> > > talk and talk and talk, making themselves even farther
> and
> >
> > > farther away. And yet, PDs aren't correcting this crap.
>
> > >
> >
>

 

[OldiesCat]

oldies DJs

No, but jocks like to do it 'cuz it makes them feel/seem like they're smarter than their audience.

>
> Not to mention that it makes your listeners feel old. Does
> anyone want to be reminded that "Eleanor Rigby" came out 40
> years ago?
>

 

[gregdymon]

Re: oldies DJs

> Imagine if you put all that time and effort into getting
> better, being more valuable AND perhaps moving into a bigger
> market. That air shift might have improved a lot.
>
> Anytime I hear a jock say something like "maybe they didn't
> want me to improve" it's almost always a sign that the jock
> couldn't/wouldn't do what it took to just be great. If you
> work for somebody you truly, honestly believe doesn't want
> you to get better so you won't leave, you're working at the
> wrong station for the wrong PD.

Thats a strong assumption. Never said I stayed there, or that I didn't improve. Remember, the premise was that the jock HAD gone outside his station for advice. Think about that.... a jock had to find out on his own where he could get help in improving his own show, the jock had to place his trust in someone who probably didn't know him at all, and definetly didn't have any stock in that jock's or the station's improvement. Finally, the jock had to be careful not to tick off, as you called it "the wrong PD" until he could get a scoped air check that WOULD attract the "right one" to hire him away.

 

[OldiesCat]

DJs

So, how could one get in trouble by soliciting input from friends, mentors, etc?

Again, I stand by my statement that anbody who says something like "my station didn't really want me to improve" was either paranoid, had a lack of ambition or spent too long at the wrong station (for whatever reason).

>
> Thats a strong assumption. Never said I stayed there, or
> that I didn't improve. Remember, the premise was that the
> jock HAD gone outside his station for advice. Think about
> that.... a jock had to find out on his own where he could
> get help in improving his own show, the jock had to place
> his trust in someone who probably didn't know him at all,
> and definetly didn't have any stock in that jock's or the
> station's improvement. Finally, the jock had to be careful
> not to tick off, as you called it "the wrong PD" until he
> could get a scoped air check that WOULD attract the "right
> one" to hire him away.
>

 

[KMRichards]

When are you all going to understand one fundamental reality?

> Slide shows, movies, ads in ad trades (ad agency).

For some reason, no matter how many times it is explained, by however many people, every "save Oldies" campaign ignores one important <u>fact</u>:

<font size=+1>AD AGENCIES DO NOT DETERMINE WHAT DEMOGRAPHICS ARE BEING TARGETED FOR AD BUYS.
THEIR CLIENTS -- <u>THE ADVERTISERS</u> -- D0.</font>

It would be a total waste of time for anyone to mount a campaign targeted at the advertising agencies. They are powerless to move ad dollars away from where their clients have directed the spending.

I consider any person who makes suggestions that are ignorant of this reality to be completely clueless, and their posts do little more than make themselves feel good. Those who agree with their posts, in mutual ignorance of reality, are blinded by their passion for the format and will have their hopes dashed.

I am also surprised that my fellow moderators, who work in the radio business, continue to allow these same suggestions to repopulate the threads here.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: When are you all going to understand one fundamental reality?

Maybe this post needs to be a sticky! When a buy is clearly 25-54, 18-34 or whatever, the ad rep who says "but these 55+ listeners have a lot of money, so, in spite of the clear instructions of you, the client, I bought this oldies station anyway, gets fired and probably never works again!" Seems like that's the scenario some on this board want.

 

[OldiesCat]

fundamental reality?

You are right, but please also remember that quite often, the tail wags the dog. It's not unheard of that ad folks are also prone to tell their clients what they want to hear. Most ad folks are way younger than the Oldies demo and it's just human nature to want to be involved with things they're interested in (and avoid things they don't think are hip, cool and packed with revenue for them).
>
> For some reason, no matter how many times it is explained,
> by however many people, every "save Oldies" campaign ignores
> one important fact:
>
> AD AGENCIES DO NOT DETERMINE WHAT DEMOGRAPHICS ARE BEING
> TARGETED FOR AD BUYS.
> THEIR CLIENTS -- THE ADVERTISERS -- D0.
>
> It would be a total waste of time for anyone to mount a
> campaign targeted at the advertising agencies. They are
> powerless to move ad dollars away from where their clients
> have directed the spending.
>
> I consider any person who makes suggestions that are
> ignorant of this reality to be completely clueless, and
> their posts do little more than make themselves feel good.
> Those who agree with their posts, in mutual ignorance of
> reality, are blinded by their passion for the format and
> will have their hopes dashed.
>
> I am also surprised that my fellow moderators, who work in
> the radio business, continue to allow these same suggestions
> to repopulate the threads here.
>

 

[radioray]

Re: When are you all going to understand one fundamental reality?

Advertising agencies are not just order takers from their clients. They are part of the process that determines what will be done. Once the overall decisions have been made the media buyers (one PART of agencies) go out and try to fulfill these demands. You are confusing the total ad agencies (which I am talking about) with media buyers inside them (which I think you are talking about).

Purely theoretical example. A fast moving consumer goods company wants to push more cans of their condensced soup. They hire and agency and say "we want to increase turnover by 10% in the next two quarters". So one guy at the agency thinks that maybe they can get a hip-hop artist to do a rap about the song, another guy thinks of a campaign with Ashton Kuchner spilling soup all over himself with his trademark goofy look. Maybe, just maybe an attempt to "work" them would result in someone in the agency piping up and saying "wait guys, I dunno if that crowd is going to be buying our cans, why not reach out to their parents or grandparents with a campaign about how our soup has had unchanged recipes since we started making it many years ago....lets do a campaign 45 plus with a tag

"X soup, the taste you'll always remember, the quality you'll never forget".

and have the Rolling Stones and Paul McCartney appear on TV and in radio spots instead of P-Diddy and Jessica Simpson?"

Isn't it possible that this could be the pitch they take to the client and win him over with? Isnt this an approach one agency could use to compete with a dozen others if it's an open tender for the flight?

Just a thought. BTW - No need to totally go off on me. Sheesh.

 

[gregdymon]

Re: When are you all going to understand one fundamental reality?

I'm not defending oldies (nor am I NOT not defending oldies) as a viable format.
And I DEFINETLY don't want to tick off a moderator. But I noticed in your profile you're a consultant..... do you mind telling us what formats you normally consult? I'm not insinuating ANYTHING, its just a matter of curiousity to me.

> I consider any person who makes suggestions that are
> ignorant of this reality to be completely clueless, and
> their posts do little more than make themselves feel good.
> Those who agree with their posts, in mutual ignorance of
> reality, are blinded by their passion for the format and
> will have their hopes dashed.
>
> I am also surprised that my fellow moderators, who work in
> the radio business, continue to allow these same suggestions
> to repopulate the threads here.
>

 

[KMRichards]

Re: When are you all going to understand one fundamental reality?

> And I DEFINETLY don't want to tick off a moderator. But I
> noticed in your profile you're a consultant..... do you mind
> telling us what formats you normally consult? I'm not
> insinuating ANYTHING, its just a matter of curiousity to me.

No offense presumed; you ask a perfectly legitimate question.

Primarily Hot ACs, leaning 80s. I have 30+ years experience in a variety of formats (including Oldies) as a PD/OM, MD, and air talent.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[THEInsultant]

Non-Comm?

For the life of me, I don't understand why some colleges/non-comms out there don't try to do 50s-60s with lots of beg-a-thons. To an older audience that's afraid they'll loose their station again, I'd have to think the money would roll in better than when Oral Roberts threatened God was going to take him home. LOL! NPR can only go so far, and in many markets it's duplicated big-time. So, why not try real oldies? Alumini with fat pockets full of bucks that have loyalty like no other.. that's what Oldies on a non-comm college station would be for sure.

I'm glad to see CC has put some decent formats on HD-2 like 50s-60s. If they let the local programmers the programming of these channels, it might be the best damn thing that happened to radio since FM.


Fred is right on target with his comments. The problem I see is the 30 somethings that do the buying and make the decisions for placing the orders aren't going to change their thinking regardless of how much evidence shows they are in error. Let's just hope something like HD-2 works out for those of us that love the format.

For the record, XM should really think about putting up a REAL 50s-60s Rock and Roll HITS station. Channel 5 and 6 have a lot of baggage that most won't listen through. I suppose there are those out there that enjoy hearing something that never made the top 100 many times an hour, but the majority of those over 55 would rather just have a terrestrial oldies station replacement. It beats nothing, but it's far from perfect. I would dare say XM would be shocked to see how many would sign up for their service if they'd just provide a good oldies station with really good jocks. Word would travel fast amongst the older population. They are the generation of protests 'ya know. LOL!





<P ID="signature">______________
--- THE Insultant ---</P>