Will the local programmer make a comeback?

[Groove1670]

This quote from publisher Michael Harrison in a Radio Info Article

"When radio programmers allow the collusion of corporate bean counters in both the music and broadcasting business to control what they consider to be the boundaries of their universe, they can kiss their ownership of the music culture and radio's vital role within it goodbye."

How will this impact programming at radio.

Will radio ignore certain songs that the public is buying and listening to (at the time)?

I stress as current. Not if it will make it as a gold or recurrent in the future.

 

[TheBigA]

That's a pretty loaded statement, and the context was the new Billboard charts that incorporate sales and streaming with radio airplay.

First of all, with regards to the chart, keep in mind that Billboard has ALWAYS been about sales. Airplay was a secondary part of the Billboard charts. Billboard uses BDS to track record sales. What is new is incorporating streaming. Streaming isn't sales. But when a song is streamed, the record labels get money in the form of a digital performance royalty. So this is about money. Labels get money from streaming, and they don't get it from OTA airplay. So record companies are more interested in their revenue streams than airplay. Just yesterday, there was an interview with new Universal Music Group Chairman Mike Dungan, in which he repeatedly criticized the role of radio "gatekeepers" in restricting the growth of new artists. So the record labels are looking for a form of popular measurement that includes things other than airplay, and Billboard was happy to deliver.

Harrison's quote puts all the responsibility on radio. But the record labels take some reponsibility here. They are the ones who feel the on-air radio world is too restrictive to their artists and their business. So it's not just corporate radio "bean counters" who should be singled out. There are lots of bean counters in the music industry, and they're the ones behind this new chart.

The reality is that the public has ALWAYS been in control of music culture. The question is who are the tastemakers? Who are the ones driving the public towards the music and culture. The fact is that it's all about money, both in radio and records. It always has been. That's why the labels were willing to break the law to influence radio programmers 60 years ago, and why they'd gladly do it today. Money was behind the decision to play pop music in the 50s. Radio was in trouble back then, and playing pop music was the solution. It worked.

Today, the situation is far more complex. Music isn't restricted by categories. Radio is built around easily-defined categories, or formats, while listening isn't. That's what the new Billboard chart points out. There are a lot of music purists who are very worried about the new Billboard chart, because it threatens the purity of their genres. Country fans have started a petition against this chart, because they're concerned it will mean the end of traditional country music. Does radio want to be the defender of format purity, or does it want to promote cross-over? Taylor Swift and Jason Aldean have shown that there is more money in crossover music than in narrowly defined genres. As a result, they are controlling the new Billboard charts.

So it gets back to the bean counters again. It's all about money. That's what charts measure. Not art or quality. But sales. So it sounds like Harrison is concerned more about preserving mythology than in dealing with reality. The reality is it's all about money. The mythology is about controlling the hearts & minds of the music fans. What's more important? The fans know what they like. It's up to radio to give it to them. Radio sells audience, so it's in radio's interest to play what's popular, regardless of what the purists or bean counters want.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think Harrison is saying anything about local programming vs. national programming. What he's talking about the radio programmer who is more concerned about preserving his format than playing what the public wants. I agree with that point of view. This isn't a time to circle the wagons, but look at what the public is buying, and play it on the radio. I don't expect the deals radio companies are making with record labels will lead to radio playing less popular music, because the labels are invested in this new chart.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

As a somewhat distant observer, I see a lot of "natural drainage" that works this way:

If you have a company that owns many stations, you may want your "programmers" to work at a central location. If you spread them out all over the country and base them at individual stations or individual clusters, you face an expense issue in communicating with them. You probably need them all in the same room now and then to listen to seminars and consultants on how to do audience surveys, etc. Airline tickets and hotel rooms for the out-of-town programmers are expensive. You may protest that the programmer cannot know the local community if he/she lives in some distant city. If the programmer lives out in the distant market, he/she will develop social ties with the people at the local bar that is their favorite, at the church they choose to attend, at the service club they attend (Lions, Rotary, etc) and the programmer may be influenced by those close little circles and fail to recognize all the potential listeners they never bump into socially.

Keeping all your programmers at a central location lets you watch more closely for danger signals of payola style messing around.

And this I learned in the computer distribution business a few years ago. It is hard to get vendors to go visit 55 branches around the country. Centralize 200 people who answer the phone on behalf of those branches and the people who sell you things will send their best trainers to spend a day or two with you every 4 to 6 months. I'm trying to picture all the training reps that might visit the group of centralized programmers: Technicians from the automation company to tell them the latest tricks in making the programming more flexible. Artists could stop by. Music industry people other than artists. Survey and statistical consultants.

And when your programmer looks at his/her market(s) from a distance, they become more objective rather than pay attention to only their beer-drinking buddies. (That's what I covered earlier.)

On the other hand if you own and operate one station in rural Alabama, you will probably do your own programming decisions at the local level.

Now the question becomes: at what point do I create a company-wide centralization of programming? When I get to four or more markets? 12 markets? More than 25 stations?

 

[TheBigA]

Local is important when something local is happening. But culture isn't local any more. It really hasn't been since Elvis and The Beatles performed on Ed Sullivan. Culture is a "me too" kind of thing. When we see others doing it, we all want to jump in the pool. It isn't geographical, as we discovered with the British Invasion. Music has become a national thing. Sure there are regional variations. But we tend to think our home area is unique, when in fact it's being driven by national things like TV. There used to be local or regional radio hits, but that's when there were local record labels promoting them. Not any more. There still are local bands making music, but it's mainly cover songs in bars, not the kind of music that will influence culture.

 

[Groove1670]

I agree with that point of view. This isn't a time to circle the wagons, but look at what the public is buying,

Yep, I agree. Radio is no longer the single influence of making the hits (but it is still one of the primary sources in my opinion.

Youtube has been successful in breaking out the hits. I have mixed reviews on Itunes, and let us see what happens with the every hour on the hour.. on the hour, exclusive interview, what is your favorite song on her new album (facbook), CC Taylor Swift album blitz.

Today, the situation is far more complex.

Yes it is.

On the other hand if you own and operate one station in rural Alabama, you will probably do your own programming decisions at the local level.

In our case serving the community is first. Music is second. No ratings to worry about. ;D

There used to be local or regional radio hits, but that's when there were local record labels promoting them.

Yep, everyone played the same hits but that 5% regional gave each station a little different sound. Sadly, those days are over.

We had several records serviced (thru a rep) by Atlantic records and Arista that were huge in South Florida. That would of failed in Walla Walla.

 

[TheBigA]

Yep, I agree. Radio is no longer the single influence of making the hits (but it is still one of the primary sources in my opinion.

The one thing I noticed in comparing the new Billboard chart with the old airplay-only chart was that it was basically the same artists and the same songs. That tells me that, for the most part, radio is playing the music the people are buying and streaming. One can argue if one is influencing the other, but it's very rare that people are buying a song in huge numbers that isn't getting at least SOME radio airplay in some format.

 

[davideduardo]

...and the programmer may be influenced by those close little circles and fail to recognize all the potential listeners they never bump into socially.

And that breeds the "this market is different" belief. It's quite dangerous.

Now the question becomes: at what point do I create a company-wide centralization of programming? When I get to four or more markets? 12 markets? More than 25 stations?

It starts today with one station.

The reason is simple in that pooled resources can generally achieve more than independent satellite operations.

I've been through many cases over the last dozen or so years where it's been more important to get everyone to understand the difference between personal anecdotal experience and measured audience preferences and needs (usually called "research").

The effects of supposed "local intelligence" ranges from "there were lots of local hits here" to more generalized "I know what the people want" statements. The first statement ignores the fact that huge percentages of the US population move around over the years and that "local hits" are generally unknown to most people. The second one is just arrogance; nobody knows what the audience wants unless they ask the audience.

 

[johnbasalla]

Many, many Local artists are doing original music, in bars and out of them. I hear from them all the time. As an example, in the market I'm in, there's a two hour all Local music show on a new commercial station and the vast majority of the music is new, not covers. These bands play out all the time.