60's Music Gone From WCBS-FM

They shouldn't be purging the 60s music at all. It's bad enough their ratings will do a B.D. (BIG DROP) after that.. Make the age demo open and see what happens.

Maybe they should put a 40-50-60s oldies on a subchannel...<But would that bring an audience?? Hmm.

In Los Angeles, KRTH---another CBS station---has dropped almost all the 1960s hits. They still play a few by Aretha Franklin, Beatles, Rolling Stones, Doors, Creedence Clearwater Revival.....and that fershlugginer Brown Eyed Girl which has been played at least ten million times. Ugh! KRTH also added more 1980s hits and a few from the early '90s. The emphasis is on '70s-80s and the regular playlist was cut to a measly 400 songs and, in the most recent Nielsen Audio ratings, KRTH was the most-listened-to station for the first time in its 44-year history. Go figure! Now.....who at 'CBS-FM is trying to copy KRTH?

The reason why stations like CBS.FM focus on 35-54 as a target is that an "open demo" does not work for sales.

Click to expand...

"Focusing" on the 35-54 demo is all well and good, but suppose the focusing mechanism is out of focus? Suppose the 35-54 year olds just "like" certain songs without regard to what era they came from. Suppose they like certain songs because they aren't played to death based on the charts? Just suppose.

To quote our board moderator (and this is a very important statement, IMO):

Remember: that statistics and studies are also often wrong, or at least varied in accuracy. Statistics can sometimes be construed to support either side of an argument. Sometimes studies don't account for "something" that changes the outcome. For example: Asbestos used to be deemed safe until it was discovered not safe (I think they forgot to ask, "safe for what?"). And scientists thought the world was flat, until is was discovered to be round. The same can be thought for anything and everything we know and believe to be true today, right here, right now.

Click to expand...

Suppose there's one important ingredient that doesn't show up in today's "the world is flat" thinking? What then?

I was in a supermarket this very afternoon where I noticed that all the music was from the '60s and 70's. At the checkout, the fellow who checked us out (I'm guessing he was in his late 20's) was unusually upbeat and friendly. As we were leaving I heard a co-worker ask him, "What are you smiling about?" His reply, "I love this song ... it's really corny but I like it!" (Honest, I didn't make this up.)

wadio said:

Suppose there's one important ingredient that doesn't show up in today's "the world is flat" thinking? What then?

Click to expand...

That's why you do research. Constantly do research. And when you're not doing research yourself, you ask others in the business who are also doing research what they see. Over and over again. Constantly. You have one story about one person in his late 20s. We have thousands and thousands of them. Because we don't program to individuals. We program to the masses. To do that, we need CONSENSUS. So there's no "suppose" in our vocabulary. If you're guessing, you get fired.

Remember: that statistics and studies are also often wrong, or at least varied in accuracy. Statistics can sometimes be construed to support either side of an argument. Sometimes studies don't account for "something" that changes the outcome. For example: Asbestos used to be deemed safe until it was discovered not safe (I think they forgot to ask, "safe for what?"). And scientists thought the world was flat, until is was discovered to be round. The same can be thought for anything and everything we know and believe to be true today, right here, right now.

Click to expand...

What more can I say?

What are you saying, research isn't scientific? Whatever the object of proof, the method is to gather statistics, then use them as a model to project into the future. Sometimes the model works, sometimes it doesn't. A small deviation in the research can send the model into a large deviation (error) farther out along the timeline.

What I find interesting about those who like to argue statistics is that they are NEVER WRONG! Or at least never in doubt. And of course they have the numbers to back themselves up. ;-)

So there's no "suppose" in our vocabulary. If you're guessing, you get fired.

Click to expand...

And that's the truth! It's no longer possible to "suppose," you just have to "accept." And radio is no longer a growth industry.

DavidEduardo said:

And it is very likely all those songs were tested recently, but with the question "how much would you like to hear this song on the radio today?" What people like to hear in the background at restaurants and in clubs and stores is not necessarily what they want to hear on their favorite radio station.

Click to expand...

We've done studies on this example. Quite often, the music played in stores is from a limited rotation, from a computer or music service. Like radio, the songs get repeated a lot. The people who work at the store hear a lot of the same songs over and over, just like radio. They develop their favorites among the songs they hear at work, but they IDENTIFY those songs with their work experience. So when they hear those songs outside of work, it brings them back to work. Not always the best experience. A way to separate those songs from work is simply ask: Who sings that song? If they don't know, then you know it's not an actual favorite. Also, simply ask them to name their three favorite radio stations. If classic hits isn't among them, then your checkout guy isn't in the potential station audience.

This is why there's more to an anecdotal story than what meets the eye. And yes, anecdotal stories don't mean a thing. We are not in the personal music business. If this checkout guy loves this 60s song, and thousands of others don't share his opinion, then we don't play the song.

wadio said:

It's no longer possible to "suppose," you just have to "accept." And radio is no longer a growth industry.

Click to expand...

You just took one sentence out of context and used it to prove your point. That's not ethical. If you put the sentence in context, then you'd see that researchers take a "suppose" and then put it to the test. One example is when a 60s song like "Build Me Up Buttercup" was used in the movie "There's Something About Mary." This was a very popular movie, and a lot of people remember the song. So "suppose" people who like the movie also like the song. We tested that suppose, and found it to be true. So a lot of classic hits stations added that song by The Foundations to their playlist. That's how you turn a "suppose" into a fact.

By the way, we kept testing that song to see if it remained a favorite after a number of years, and discovered that it died off pretty quickly. That's an example of how researchers don't just accept something forever, but keep testing it to see if it stays a favorite.

One of the BEST Commercial Formats for OLDIES Right Now (In my opinion) is Westwood One's Good Time Oldies-they are playing mostly 60's Oldies.

DE & BA, you're not unlike the gurus on Wall Street ... they test and test and test and, you know what? They don't beat the market. They might for awhile, but over time their performance reverts to the mean. They keep testing and testing but eventually the system doesn't work anymore. But they'll never admit it.

wadio said:

You're not unlike the gurus on Wall Street ... they test and test and test and, you know what? They don't beat the market. They might for awhile, but over time their performance reverts to the mean. They keep testing and testing but eventually the system doesn't work anymore. But they'll never admit it.

Click to expand...

If that's what you want to believe, you're welcome to believe it. But since you don't actually do it yourself, you really don't know.

BTW, I also have a pretty good record on Wall Street.

On CHR station Back in 1989 the sixties were featured on a Lunchtime oldies show Fast forward to 2013 now the 90's are featured on a flashback lunch segment. As we get older another decade fades away. Look at it this way: Would you expect 40's music on a good times oldies station. The 60's (with the exception of a few titles) are a footnote in radio history. The 70's are and will disappear in sunset too (we still play Commodores, Bee Gees on our station). The 80's have been scaled down (but are now the main focus of classic hit stations). So what does the current generation consider "oldies" You guessed it.....the 90's.

"A way to separate those songs from work is simply ask: Who sings that song? If they don't know, then you know it's not an actual favorite." I disagree. For the most part, my wife has no idea who the artist might be or in some cases, the name of the song but she knows what she likes. She just has far too much on her mind, to keep track of such things.

semoochie said:

"A way to separate those songs from work is simply ask: Who sings that song? If they don't know, then you know it's not an actual favorite." I disagree. For the most part, my wife has no idea who the artist might be or in some cases, the name of the song but she knows what she likes. She just has far too much on her mind, to keep track of such things.

Click to expand...

Point well taken! I remember a few years ago when (what was then) a full-service local oldie/MOR format played the song "It's Just a Matter Of Time" and asked listeners to call in and guess the artist. Lotsa calls from people who loved the song, but not one of them guessed it was Brook Benton.

There are of course performers like Elvis or the Beatles who most anyone would recognize, and singers with very identifiable voices (Roy Orbison, Neil Diamond, and Cher come to mind) but not everyone will identify the Lovin' Spoonful or the Youngbloods. (By the way, to JPlain John; Orbison and Lesley Gore do still show up on oldies stations here; though maybe not Streisand...)