• 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

60's and 70's Classic Hits with some 50's?

omigawd, I can't believe this was in my inbox this morning. Pleas, please read the comment by Roy Williams in the 3rd/4th graph.

THIS will explain our argument between DE's method and our gut. I love the line about "LEADERS". Sorry Dave, my cyber adversary, this is gold to me.

http://www.rbr.com/radio/7017.html
 
amfmsw said:
omigawd, I can't believe this was in my inbox this morning. Pleas, please read the comment by Roy Williams in the 3rd/4th graph.

THIS will explain our argument between DE's method and our gut. I love the line about "LEADERS". Sorry Dave, my cyber adversary, this is gold to me.

Intuition and gut feel are great for imaging, presentation, programming sets, etc. It is not so great when one uses intuition (in this case defined as "guessing") to determine what people actually like and dislike.

You have to have the music that makes people like the station. The gut feel, creativity, intuition and such comes when you glue it all together with skill, feeling and flair.
 
Back around 2000 (approximately), I received a questionnaire in the mail asking me to listen to the oldies station here in Nashville for an hour just at random, and then to fill out the questionnaire based on what I heard, and mail it back in. (I was not paid for doing this survey, and I have no idea how they got my name, but since I usually listened to the oldies station anyway, I decided to listen, and then fill out the form and mail it in.) I remember rating everything I heard positively, but then when it asked me what I would change or improve, I said I would like to hear a little more variety in the music. The host of the show (an all-request show) was very engaging, so I rated him positively. I don't specifically recall any songs that I heard during that hour, but it was nothing out of the ordinary for an oldies station. That may have been part of the problem. Nothing stood out. I did NOT specify that I wanted to hear any specific song; if I had, I probably would have tried calling the station to request it.

On other occasions, I do recall two "oh wow" songs that he actually played. (This was well after that survey, if I remember correctly.) One was "Love is Strange" by Mickey & Sylvia (obviously repopularized by Dirty Dancing, but even that had been years earlier!), and the other was "She's a Woman" by the Beatles. The reason these two stuck in my mind was because he (the host of the program) said something to the effect (on both occasions) of, "wow, that is something we haven't played in a while!" and because he actually played them!

It seems to me that whenever anyone wants to deride our choices for "oh wow!" songs, they inevitably mention novelty songs that most people didn't want to hear back in the day, and still don't want to hear now. That really isn't fair to us. There are threads all up and down this board (that go on for pages and pages!) mentioning old songs we once heard on the radio and would love to hear again. And very few (if any) novelty songs ever make those lists. I can't help but believe that some of these novelty songs had their chart positions inflated by corporate hanky panky!

I really wish they would choose me for one of these tests. The very first thing I would tell them would be to get rid of these morning show bozos that laugh at their own jokes!! (Examples: John Boy and Billy, Rick & Bubba, Bob & Tom, etc.) I don't know anyone who actually likes these type programs, and yet they get the most prime of all (radio) prime time, morning drive!

And this is CHR-related, but I never understood why CHRs started moving their countdown shows to real early hours on Saturday and Sunday mornings, like at 6:00 a.m. both days. Yes, countdowns are specialty programs, but in the case of CHRs, they are only playing the music that the CHRs are already playing in all the other dayparts anyway, so why not carry the programs when kids and teens can actually listen? With oldies stations, the specialty programs might include music not on the station's officially sanctioned playlists, but that is clearly NOT the case with countdown programs on CHRs. Teens might wake up in time to hear the top 10 on the countdown, if they are able to wake up early enough, but that is probably about it. I remember when I was a teen in the '70s, 3:00 on Sunday afternoon was appointment radio for me and everyone I knew from school to tune in and listen to AT40 on our local CHR, which at that time was an AM station. In the '80s, they moved their CHR to FM, and their countdowns to 6:00 a.m. on weekend mornings.
 
firepoint525 said:
I really wish they would choose me for one of these tests. The very first thing I would tell them would be to get rid of these morning show bozos that laugh at their own jokes!! (Examples: John Boy and Billy, Rick & Bubba, Bob & Tom, etc.) I don't know anyone who actually likes these type programs, and yet they get the most prime of all (radio) prime time, morning drive!

There are two kinds of tests (oversimplified, of course). One is a music test where you and 99 other folks grade the songs. There is no dialog or Q&A there. Then there are things like focus groups (a chat with 10 people an a moderator) or a perceptual (usually on the phone with lots of open quesitions). Stations do the music thing often, but perceptuals, today, usually when there are danger signs.

And this is CHR-related, but I never understood why CHRs started moving their countdown shows to real early hours on Saturday and Sunday mornings, like at 6:00 a.m. both days. Yes, countdowns are specialty programs, but in the case of CHRs, they are only playing the music that the CHRs are already playing in all the other dayparts anyway, so why not carry the programs when kids and teens can actually listen? With oldies stations, the specialty programs might include music not on the station's officially sanctioned playlists, but that is clearly NOT the case with countdown programs on CHRs. Teens might wake up in time to hear the top 10 on the countdown, if they are able to wake up early enough, but that is probably about it. I remember when I was a teen in the '70s, 3:00 on Sunday afternoon was appointment radio for me and everyone I knew from school to tune in and listen to AT40 on our local CHR, which at that time was an AM station. In the '80s, they moved their CHR to FM, and their countdowns to 6:00 a.m. on weekend mornings.

Syndicated shows are generally put in the less listened to weekend shifts as a way to have quality or unusual programming in dayparts where the option is a lesser-paid jock who will have to be trained, supervised and guided. It's easier and generally cheaper to run a syndicated show.
[/quote]
 
Okay, let's face it. The over 55 crowd, according to advertisers, ad agencies, or somebody out there will not buy anything based on advertising. Perhaps that's true. Hey, look at daytime TV. All the ads are for Scooters and Hoverrounds, Medicare supplements, Diabetic supplies, Nebulizers, Life Insurance, and attorneys who want you to sue somebody.

Although I don't like the way that Dave has sent his message, his message may be true TO A POINT. However, it may be true because it is like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Over 55 won't listen to ads, so we won't test people over 55. With no tests, there is no data for over 55. With no data for over 55 there is no market. What is bothersome to me is that if the researchers do not test those over 55, how the heck do they know what us geezers and wheezers will or won't respond to in terms of music and/or product advertisement?

I am over 55 and have no need for a Hoverround, Diabetic supplies, Nebulizers, and Medicare supplements. I do like to eat out and like to go to places I have never been before. I do buy groceries, cars, clothes, electronics, jewelry, and can afford to buy more than a lot of the younger demos (not because of great income, but because of lack of debt). I am not much of an impulse buyer, but ads do create the product awareness for me to base purchases upon.

If age drives the radio market, and over 55 drives them right off a cliff, so be it. However, the last radio survey I did indicated that my radio listening was exclusively the oldies format during drive time, and on weekends as well except for some live sporting events. The only way to prove the researchers wrong is to take the big gamble and try the ideas of Oldies76 or deltas69 in a large market AND prove to ad buyers that 55 year old folks can be influenced by advertising. Unfortunately, while I believe that both can be done, I doubt that they can be done in today's "follow the routine" radio and advertising media.

One thing for sure, if we oldies freaks have to get our appetites fed by our own programming of cd's and mp3's and noncommercial radio, advertising sure can't influence our buying decisions.
 
barnaby_wilde said:
Although I don't like the way that Dave has sent his message, his message may be true TO A POINT. However, it may be true because it is like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Over 55 won't listen to ads, so we won't test people over 55. With no tests, there is no data for over 55. With no data for over 55 there is no market. What is bothersome to me is that if the researchers do not test those over 55, how the heck do they know what us geezers and wheezers will or won't respond to in terms of music and/or product advertisement?

The issue starts at the product and service level. Advertisers go to an agency with a marketing plan, based on target ages and lifestyles and ask the agency to create and place advertising against this target and no other. In most cases, the advertisers have determined that older consumers either don't use enough of a product (beer, for example) or have set patterns which take a lot of advertising impressions to change. In such cases, the cost of advertising may be greater than the profit on the sale (ROI) and so 55+ is not specified as a target.

Since there is no money coming from agencies for radio for 55+ (or 12-17) stations ignore these ages as there is no way to make a profit with a teen or 55+ radio station in the larger rated markets where agency business is essential.

If there is a change in advertiser behaviour, there will be loads of 55+ radio stations. For the moment, there is no way to justify addressing this group.

[/quote]The only way to prove the researchers wrong is to take the big gamble and try the ideas of Oldies76 or deltas69 in a large market AND prove to ad buyers that 55 year old folks can be influenced by advertising. Unfortunately, while I believe that both can be done, I doubt that they can be done in today's "follow the routine" radio and advertising media. [/quote]

Radio stations do not have contact with the agency clients; in most cases, unless invited by the agency, it's considered unethical to bypass the agency and potentially endanger the client / agency relationship. In fact, the client hired an agency to deal with the media, not so the media could call on the client.

If a client tells an agency that its millions of dollars in research indicate a focus on Men 25-44, then the agency is bound to create a campaign that targets that demo and to buy media that appeal strongly to the demo, too.

Ad buyers do just that: they negotiate rates with media that reach each campaign's target demo. They do not have the authority to change the demo the client designed the product for.

One thing for sure, if we oldies freaks have to get our appetites fed by our own programming of cd's and mp3's and noncommercial radio, advertising sure can't influence our buying decisions.

It's not about advertising working... it's about the cost of the advertising vs. the profit on the sale. A more resistant consumer will require lots more impressions before becoming a buyer. At that point, the ROI may be negative.
 
barnaby_wilde The only way to prove the researchers wrong is to take the big gamble and try the ideas of Oldies76 or deltas69 in a large market AND prove to ad buyers that 55 year old folks can be influenced by advertising. Unfortunately, while I believe that both can be done, I doubt that they can be done in today's "follow the routine" radio and advertising media.

That's what we've trying to say for this thread and the large KRTH thread around Easter..Give it try!!
Barnaby_wilde..have you heard WCBS 101.1 lately? Kind of along the lines were trying to persuade here?

And then the article! from Roy Williams

"Unfortunately, it is intuition that ownership will never trust, but it was intuition that originally built unique, compelling radio stations like the old WNEW and many others that ultimately drove away their audience with formulaic, predictable, boring programming that offered no real incentive for listener loyalty."

"The whole approach to programming has become so ass-backwards. We need to get the true "Radio Artists" back into the fold, put the research and the formulas on the back burner, and bring back the "Field of Dreams" school of Radio Programming:" "Build a Great Radio Station and the Listeners Will Come."

Hopefully this will influence a change for the better.

Repetition and playlists of 400...blah, blah.
 
amfmsw said:
Debbie Downer sez: "Geezers and Seniors....

David, I'm 52, I doubt ANYONE would call me a "Senior". The Tampa station that ranks #1 but bill 14th...do you even remotely consider they could possibly have a SALES problem? No matter what you're format is, you won't make penny 1 without a know-how sales team.

At this age, us "Geezers" still switch brands...that's an old wives tale that you may have picked up watching AMC's "Mad Men". That is so old fashioned thinking! If it were true, there would still be demand for B&W Console TV's! Many times, people switch brands because of a bad experience.

I drove GM for years. I liked the product for the price. My wife decided she wanted a Jeep..an honest-to-gawd Cherokee 4wd. I love it! It's a vehicle I never would have even considerd. We switched.

My new Chevy Malibu turned out to be a poorly constructed, thrown together piece of junk. Engine failure at 51,000 miles, and the factory wouldn't back it. I gave it to the kid. I'll never buy GM again. I bought an Infinity. Why? TOP OF MIND. Shopped other luxury brands, but bought this because it was the most car for the money at the time, and I was FAMILIAR with it because they marketed to me. My first Japanese car, and I love it. I SWITCHED.

Just upgraded to HDTV in October. Replaced a Zenith System 3 with a Sansui. I just recarpeted the house. The wife shopped at a store that advertises on the station she listens to, and we bought a brand that marketed to US, Karastan. Next is new Energy Star Central Air unit. And a new roof. That will complete the refurb I've already done with Anderson Windows and doors. Oh, did I mention the 50's-60's-70's Oldies Station listeners have homes, money, and buy premium brands. We've adopted the digital age, CD's, DVD's, internet. We're resonably quick adopters of the new. Boomers buy bigger, better and more often. We EMPLOY the young women who listen to Lite Rock and Urban AC. We EMPLOY the young men 18-34 so sought after. Why? WE have the money!

I'm not loyal to any brand of beer, soda, snack, department store, jeans, supermarket, gasoline, dog food, etc. But I do have favorites, like Pennsylvania Dutch Birch Beer and Jersey Tomatoes. I am loyal to my employer, wife and family, and doctors. But, I'll leave Comcast as soon as FiOS becomes available. Boomers switch brands, all you have to do is tell us why it's better, will benefit me over a comeptitor, and gives me value. BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT WHEN YOU STOP TALKING TO US.

So true.....

I mentioned this in another thread a few weeks back, but my parents are both over 60. By the "don't advertise" logic, they should be driving an Oldsmobile, listening to KRTH, buying Budweiser (that's why my Dad drank in the 70s), and eating at Pizzeria Uno (that's where the family ate then.)

The truth is that they just bought a Prius, they've never HEARD of K-Earth, Dad drinks California craft beers, and Mom would die without her Trader Joe's, a place she discovered only a few years ago.

Advertisers are fools to dismiss such a huge segment of the market. Especially as the boomer bulge gets old!
 
[/quote]

There aren't any commercial stations targeting 55+ save a handful of remaining smaller market standards stations and a bunch of unrated market or small market oldies stations that depend almost 100% on local direct business.

So if there are no stations serving older people, and younger people don't really listen to radio, and people 30-50 are bored and turning to CD players and ipods....

Who exactly are you serving?...
 
surfdude said:
They're screened by whether they listen to your format: Oldies, CHR, Country, etc...
They MUST listen to your format, at least sometimes, to be included. Usually half of them choose your station first. I've attended many of the tests, the 100 people in the ballroom of a hotel seem to really enjoy it. You see them singing along and tapping they're feet. The Oldies tests I've sat in on seem to include every socio-economic group.

They hear only about 8 seconds of each song, the hook, the most recognizable part of the song.
The reason for 8 seconds is that's about how long they would give the song before they would either change the station or decide to leave it on if they were in their car. They score it on a 1 to 5 scale and on whether the recognize it. Most Oldies listeners would tune out a song they don't recogonize because that's not why they came to your station. We know this because we ask them in one on one sessions. They want the familiarity and comfort of a song they know, and like.

That's why deeper cuts and less familiar songs don't get played. I do believe you can do specialty programming on the weekend that allows you to go deeper, as long as you clearly let your listeners know that
are are doing something special. My station is doing a Novelty Hits Weekend. Two or three per hour.
Songs we don't normally play.

Do they test the ads?

Isn't that what this is all about? How many people stick around for the ads....

If people are giving a song 8 freakin' seconds, then zapping it, who is listening to the ads? Are advertisers complete fools?

What I think you would want is a station that attracts a LONGTIME listener that has it on all day, and isn't going to zap you at the slightest "negative." That listener is also going to zap an ad.

That listener is also NOT going to tolerate boredom and repetition, and is going to want some personality and life.
 
muskrat14 said:
Why play them on a themed weekend ? why not play the whole 4000 or so playlist ? if they can remember their old girl friend from 73 on a weekend..surely they can remember her on a thursday afternoon..i'm not saying don't play the same 300..just insert all then others with proper jingles, sandwich them in between the tested stuff..yea..they might not have thought of Ringo (lorne greene, 1964, #1) since they were in the 9th grade..but play that, properly inserted,,and i bet they say..holy $**t ..where'd that come from ..or navy blue by diane ray..they don't have to be one hit wonders like these two.and yes the listener has been dumbed down by having the same songs thrown at them day after day...i understand that captureing and keeping a listner is what it's all about..you got an hour or so in drive times..but that doesn;t mean you have to hear, pretty woman, the loin sleeps tonight, and do you love me, every morning and afternoon at the same time..but hopefully i'm beginning to make my case to the rock jury here.one thing is for sure i obviously have a totaly different take on what and how to play this genre' than most others, ..lol..

Tell me you're kidding. "Ringo?" Who in their right mind would sit through that?

Ratings results for decades confirm that huge, unfocused, playlists don't work. People may say that want "variety" (whatever that means), but their behavior shows otherwise. People tune out the unfamiliar, the obnoxious, the out-of-place. Go ahead -- play "Ringo," "The Streak," and the like on a regular basis and see what happens. They don't say "oh wow.." they say "what the hell?"

And as for old girlfriends, once you've remembered her once, why would you do it again?

Why does everyone insist on using the supremely sucky songs like "Ringo" "The Streak" or "Convoy" as reasons why you can't have diversity?

There are plenty of GOOD, normal songs that don't get played. Not because people hate them, but because they are not being rated as high as the big guns like Hotel California or Unchained Melody or Brown Eyed Girl.

Using this "rate-a-record" format leads to the burned out popular songs ranking super high.

Let's use good ol' Van as an example. If you like Brown Eyed Girl, wouldn't you also like Domino? Or Call Me Up in Dreamland? Or Wavelength? Those songs don't suck. They aren't stupid-ass novelty songs. They're good music! Play more than one song!
 
scooty430 said:
What I think you would want is a station that attracts a LONGTIME listener that has it on all day, and isn't going to zap you at the slightest "negative." That listener is also going to zap an ad.

Although using a different methodology, a study done prior to the lifting of the TV freeze showed the average American listened to radio for 20 hours a week (this is referenced in Garay's scholarly biography of Gordon McLendon). In 1990, after TV, color TV, cassettes, video games, CDs and cable, the average American listened for about 19 to 20 hours of radio a week.

Today, the average is around 17 to 18 hours, nearly 20 years into the satellite, Internet and text message world.

So, listeners never listened all day. A few do, most don't. The average listening is around 2 hours a day or so. Folks have other things to do besides listening, although we are grateful for the time we get. This is why stations that play currents want to repeat them every two to three hours. And why the olde played at 8 PM is not gong to be heard by the person listening at 7 AM the next morning or the one who hears it at 3 PM in the afternoon.

Ah, and most listeners know that putting up with ads is the price they pay for free radio. But putting up with bad songs is not part of the deal, so they are more likely to leave for a bad tune than a stopset.
 
Why does everyone insist on using the supremely sucky songs like "Ringo" "The Streak even i wouldn't play convoy..but the point trying to be made was playing a lot of forgotton, unplayed, mostly ignored songs..tons of great ones that never see the tone arm..uughh..hard drive..and while ringo etc may suck to you..it may be someones favorite..i said maybe lol it was just the first obscure #1 i thought of..maybe i should have chosen "you light up my life" #1 for 10 weeks... ;)
 
Scooty & deltas69: You're both on the ball here (did you both read the radio article posted?). I wouldn't play Ringo or The Streak or even You Light Up my Life, that frequent , probably in a specialty featuring those years (64, 74 & 77, respectively), BUT I would touch most others, that are not played today, hundreds of them upon hundreds!

What about "Little Girl" from 1966 by Syndicate of Sound...an awesome tune with that energetic 60's sound!!

or even "Do it Any Way You Wanna" 1975..by People's Choice & "Armed and Extremely Dangerous" 1973 by First Choice...obscure..but awesome, radio sounding songs!
 
scooty430 Advertisers are fools to dismiss such a huge segment of the market. Especially as the boomer bulge gets old!

This is a LARGE segment of the population, or it will be soon as they set to retire over the years. Their memories are the 50's, 60's and 70's. Music ALWAYS relates to wonderful memories (some tragic, unfortunately) in people's lives. It has been and always will be. By playing these hits of the past to this audience, wouldn't they have a blast? It'll knock their socks off! By the way, my dad is turning 70 soon..he wishes there was a station playing all the great 50's and early 60's music in So Cal. Except for KRTH's "Tequilla", there's nothing!! I have to make him CDR's of my collection of hits. His favorite songs are "Mr. Lee" 1957 and "Big John" 1961.

Just another say, to your accurate statement scooty430.
 
On the subject of "Ringo," I am led to believe that one was a hit because enough people were led to believe it was about Ringo Starr! After all, 1964 was the year of the Beatles! (I haven't heard the song in a while, so I have no way of knowing that for sure.) And I'm sure the record company did absolutely nothing to dissuade them from believing that.

Here in Nashville, we have WAMB, a station that still programs to the "pre-rock" generation, playing Sinatra, Dean Martin, etc. You know, my parents' generation's music. But ironically, no one playing the first generation of rock and roll (from Elvis up to the Beatles) any more. My parents would probably listen to WAMB, except that they live on the wrong side of town to pick up their signal, so they listen mostly to WSM. (Aside from that, WAMB is increasingly going over to talk programming.)
 
firepoint525 said:
On the subject of "Ringo," I am led to believe that one was a hit because enough people were led to believe it was about Ringo Starr! After all, 1964 was the year of the Beatles! (I haven't heard the song in a while, so I have no way of knowing that for sure.) And I'm sure the record company did absolutely nothing to dissuade them from believing that.


I continue to be amazed at what Google can find!:

They lie in boot hills all through the west.
The outlaws, the gunslingers, the Billy the Kidds and worse.
Say a fella like the coward that shot Bill Hickok in the back.
Theres always one like that in every time of history.
Most of them were varments, but every once in a while, in one of them,
there may have lived a man...

He lay face down in the desert sand
clutching a six gun in his hand
Shot from behind I though he was dead
for under his heart was an once of lead
But a spark still burned so I used my knife
and late that night I saved the life of Ringo

I nursed him 'til the danger passed
the days went by he mended fast
and then from dawn 'til setting sun
he practiced with that deadly gun
and hour and hour I watched in awe
No human being could match the draw
of Ringo

One day we rode the mountain crest
and I went east and he went west
I took to law and wore a star
while he spread terror near and far
with lead and blood he gained such fame
all through the west they feared the name
of Ringo

I knew someday I'd face the test
which one of us would be the best
and sure enough the word came down
that he was holed up in the town
I left the posse out on the street
and I went in alone to meet
Ringo

They said my speed was next to none
but my lightning draw had just begun
when I heard a blast that stunned my wrist
The gun went flying from my fist
and I was looking down the bore
of the deadly 44
of Ringo

They say that was the only time
that anyone had seen him smile
He slowly lowered his gun and then
he said to me "We're even, friend."
And so at last I understood
that there was still a spark of good
in Ringo

I blocked the path of his retreat
he turned and stepped into the street
a dozen guns spit fire and lead-

A moment later
he lay dead

The town began to shout and cheer
Nowhere was there shed a tear
for Ringo

The story spread throughout the land
that I had beaten Ringo's hand
and it was just the years they say
that made me put my guns away
but on his grave they can't explain
the tarnished star above the name
of Ringo
 
Ringo is a song programmed into my DNA since I was 3 in 1964, and we played that record over and over.
Then we played Bonanza over and over again.

I wonder why the first verse "They lie in boot hills... ..there may have lived a man" was not recorded by Lorne Green.
 
I wonder why the first verse "They lie in boot hills... ..there may have lived a man" was not recorded by Lorne Green. i don't want anyone to think i'm crazier than already thought of..but i have two versions of RINGO..one with the boot hill intro before the music starts..and one where the song starts with the music..and both are done by lorne greene..am i to understand..somewhere there is THIRD version with a different intro with another voice ? my collection demands that i have this !! lol
 
I was going to say..check Napster, but there's only one version listed. I have the 45 and it's Lorne Greene's intro. Yeah, Ringo (song format) seemed out of place in 1964, in the midst of the Beatles & British invasion. I'm surprised it even made #1 in 1964.

Ringo would go well hand in hand with Jorgen Ingmann's "Apache", Jimmy Dean's "Big Bad John" or even "Tom Dooley" by the Kingston Trio. Great tunes...you just don't hear anymore (early 60's and late 50's).
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom