radio was great when there was one owner per station

[DavidEduardo]

You are missing the point. And that's not what I said. #39, come on. Top TEN singles!

Many songs that were top 10 in their day are disgustingly negative today, starting with "Honey" and "You Light Up My Life".

Radio stations play songs that are hits today. If they no longer appeal, it does not matter if they were the biggest selling record of all time... they are unplayable.

 

[TheBigA]

You are missing the point. And that's not what I said. #39, come on. Top TEN singles!

No, YOU'RE missing the point. The most popular radio stations in the country didn't get there by playing personalized playlists.

We're sticking with what works. Feel free to make your own personalized playlist. It won't hurt our feelings.

 

[oldies76]

Were it my choice, I'd have big hits from the 60's to today including vallenato, cumbia, reggaetón, pasillo, rock, folk, jazz, country, Top 40 from the 50's to today, disco, Motown, 80's, hip hop, highlife, bomba, plena, classical, salsa, dancehall, merengue, ranchera, bluegrass, afrobeat, cajun, Arab Pop, Bollywood, Celtic, Italian Top 40 of the 60's and 70's, French Top 40 of the same era, montunito, guaracha, and a few others.

I'm also perceptive enough to know that I'd be the only person in my metro that would like that.

A few would tune in, no doubt. Don't forget to throw some Tormenta "Adolescente Tierno" in there from Argentina and a few Marisol and Leo Dan classics.

 

[oldies76]

Many songs that were top 10 in their day are disgustingly negative today, starting with "Honey"

Speaking of "Honey", someone requested it a couple weeks ago on a lunch-hour cafe request segment on 1430 Denver. Some people obviously still enjoy it, a half-century later.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Speaking of "Honey", someone requested it a couple weeks ago on a lunch-hour cafe request segment on 1430 Denver. Some people obviously still enjoy it, a half-century later.

You use a station with an occasional 0.1 share in 25-54 as an example? Hoist on your own petard, mate.

 

[DavidEduardo]

A few would tune in, no doubt. Don't forget to throw some Tormenta "Adolescente Tierno" in there from Argentina and a few Marisol and Leo Dan classics.

There you go again. Tormenta's only playable hit (from 1972) was "Adios Muchacho de Mi Barrio" and it was about the only one with significant play outside the Southern Cone. I never found it to work on later (90's and beyond) research in Ecuador, Colombia or Puerto Rico. We did research for a possible oldies format in Buenos Aires in 2001, and a couple of her songs still scored there, but that was nearly two decades ago and there is no advertiser interest in 50+ in Latin America.

 

[R.D.P.]

Well after I signed on with WPJB-LP Selma, I tried to follow the oldies76 model and play every CD, that I own. This "Play What Dan Wants Idea", became a quick failure. Had too many people to protest me over it. Since August 2017, Dan got more focused and is now concentrating on playing songs that test and perform well. Now that I'm doing the more focused thing, my own LPFM radio station is having big time success.

Besides it makes for better radio listening.

Now if a radio station were to play everything that has ever been released, musically speaking, Dan would avoid them like plague. A good bit of their playlist would be a bore and big time turn off for me. I want to listen a radio station that keeps things in their proper focus and plays only those songs that work and test well. Anything less, wouldn't appeal to me.

Dan <><

 

[oldies76]

Well after I signed on with WPJB-LP Selma, I tried to follow the oldies76 model and play every CD, that I own. Found out very quickly the idea wasn't working too well. Had too many complaints from the people. Some said your music is too slow for me. Others said the music is a bit too hard or old for me

But that's not my model either. I would just play the bigger hits from high spots on the weekly charts, not obscure #39 songs or unknown b-sides / album cuts.

My model is playing the bigger hits from years past, mixing them up with more positive songs and having nice weekend features. Old school radio. Simple and to the point. And I believe it can work, if implemented correctly.

Not #39's, no #72's, just the bigger hits. There are a couple thousand of those, not every song that's in the Whitburn books like others suggest I'm obsessed with.

1967-1989 would be my focal point, with a few good selects from the 90's.

 

[TheBigA]

I believe it can work, if implemented correctly.

The way to implement the format correctly is the way it's currently being done by stations such as WCBS, WOGL, and others.

They are getting the best possible results doing that particular format.

BTW this entire discussion should be moved to the format board...it has nothing to do with Philadelphia.

 

[R.D.P.]

To be honest, if I was to play every CD I own, my LPFM radio station would become a quick failure. Now that I'm still gaining listeners, it's better for me to get their input and play only those songs they want to hear the most. Many of the great CD's, I still own, will have to stay hidden. My own engineer did advise me to avoid playing certain styles due to people not playing them anymore (Instrumentals) and they'll get too old too fast (Hymns). I'm going to keep my own playlist very focused and stick to those songs that have the most appeal and perform well. Anything less, will be avoided on purpose.

Dan <><

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

But that's not my model either. I would just play the bigger hits from high spots on the weekly charts, not obscure #39 songs or unknown b-sides / album cuts.

My model is playing the bigger hits from years past, mixing them up with more positive songs and having nice weekend features. Old school radio. Simple and to the point. And I believe it can work, if implemented correctly.

Not #39's, no #72's, just the bigger hits. There are a couple thousand of those, not every song that's in the Whitburn books like others suggest I'm obsessed with.

1967-1989 would be my focal point, with a few good selects from the 90's.

It doesn't matter what was a top ten hit "then." Period. Full stop. If the audience doesn't want to hear it now, you don't play it. Period. Full stop. At least not if you want to make money. Implemented correctly is not compatible with playing things that make your audience tune out. Some songs manage to hold their appeal. Some wind up in the category of "things best forgotten."

On the other hand, sometimes songs that didn't make it that high manage to age better. So it goes. That's why research matters. Data matters.

People whose livelihoods depend on these kinds of things do their research. Obsessive complainers do not.

 

[Miguelito]

You use a station with an occasional 0.1 share in 25-54 as an example? Hoist on your own petard, mate.

Boop.

This thread is hilarious. What's suggested is basically the antithesis of the business model but we're entertaining the topic for six pages so far. I wish WPHT would flip to an urban or ethnic format so we'd have something interesting to talk about.

Also: "Hoisted by your own petard" is one of my favorite turns of phrase. Especially since most people don't know what I mean when I say it!

 

[chrocket87]

I wish WPHT would flip to an urban or ethnic format so we'd have something interesting to talk about.

Oh, man, you’re really gonna get the trolls going with that one!

 

[DOB]

It's funny how radio is being killed by playlists that are too tight but those who take issue with it usually want to go too far and play songs that people truly don't want. The right secondary cuts, and rotated properly, not only are themselves great but they make the tried and true sound better as well. Good stations also know the right times to be ultra tight and the times when you need to get a little bit deeper. The Whitburn books are great trivia but I can't imagine anyone would look up a song and say "oh it peaked at #3 in 1985, gotta play it, or oh it never 'melted' the charts gotta drop it".

 

[TheBigA]

It's funny how radio is being killed by playlists that are too tight

I take issue with your premise. Radio is NOT getting "killed by playlists." I regularly look at streaming charts to see what people listen to when THEY make the playlists, and they're not any larger than what they hear on radio. In fact they're a lot smaller. That's why OTA radio is still so viable in a world where people have access to streaming and satellite. And once again, in market after market, the classic hits station with a solid library of songs is either #1 or #2. These stations are NOT being killed by anything.

 

[DavidEduardo]

It's funny how radio is being killed by playlists that are too tight but those who take issue with it usually want to go too far and play songs that people truly don't want. The right secondary cuts, and rotated properly, not only are themselves great but they make the tried and true sound better as well. Good stations also know the right times to be ultra tight and the times when you need to get a little bit deeper. The Whitburn books are great trivia but I can't imagine anyone would look up a song and say "oh it peaked at #3 in 1985, gotta play it, or oh it never 'melted' the charts gotta drop it".

The problem is that "secondary" songs are ones which a few people like and many people dislike. For every one of those "secondary" songs, there may be a tiny group that likes them, but a large number that considers them songs they "dislike" or "hate".

The reason why stations have the playlist length that they have at present is that there are no more songs that score well enough to play. If there were more, radio would play them.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Also: "Hoisted by your own petard" is one of my favorite turns of phrase. Especially since most people don't know what I mean when I say it!

Ah, that Shakespeare guy did have a way with the language.

 

[TheBigA]

The reason why stations have the playlist length that they have at present is that there are no more songs that score well enough to play. If there were more, radio would play them.

We should point out, in case anyone brings it up, is there is no direct financial expense to larger playlists. It's not like stations buy the records they play, or the song royalties will be any greater if they use a larger playlist. The cost of larger playlists is it results in smaller audiences. There is a direct relationship. And these stations are now playing to the largest audiences in their markets.

 

[Miguelito]

I take issue with your premise. Radio is NOT getting "killed by playlists." I regularly look at streaming charts to see what people listen to when THEY make the playlists, and they're not any larger than what they hear on radio. In fact they're a lot smaller. That's why OTA radio is still so viable in a world where people have access to streaming and satellite. And once again, in market after market, the classic hits station with a solid library of songs is either #1 or #2. These stations are NOT being killed by anything.

The truly great days of radio were the "Live & Local" days. I get a lot of flack with this opinion but one of the things that's killing radio is how cheap the owners are. These companies buy up a bunch of stations (hundreds perhaps) and start with this "synergy" crap whereby they try to apply the same playlists and jocks and concepts all over the country. Cheaply run stations often sound cheap but it seems listeners are getting used to it.

And here's another big thing that's killing radio: At the same time that all of that is happening, customers continue to gain more and more ways to get the music they want--and ONLY the music they want--without even having to deal with commercials! The time to cheapen your product should probably not coincide with an explosion of competing technologies, right?

I used to think that tight playlists were a problem. And in a lot of cases, with a lot of stations, they were a problem. But they were a problem FOR ME. I didn't like the format or I didn't like the way a station was doing the format. But that's just me. If I were in the majority, what I wanted would be on the radio. But I wasn't. Tight playlists work on the radio. If they didn't, stations wouldn't be using them.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

The truly great days of radio were the "Live & Local" days. I get a lot of flack with this opinion but one of the things that's killing radio is how cheap the owners are. These companies buy up a bunch of stations (hundreds perhaps) and start with this "synergy" crap whereby they try to apply the same playlists and jocks and concepts all over the country. Cheaply run stations often sound cheap but it seems listeners are getting used to it.

And here's another big thing that's killing radio: At the same time that all of that is happening, customers continue to gain more and more ways to get the music they want--and ONLY the music they want--without even having to deal with commercials! The time to cheapen your product should probably not coincide with an explosion of competing technologies, right?

I used to think that tight playlists were a problem. And in a lot of cases, with a lot of stations, they were a problem. But they were a problem FOR ME. I didn't like the format or I didn't like the way a station was doing the format. But that's just me. If I were in the majority, what I wanted would be on the radio. But I wasn't. Tight playlists work on the radio. If they didn't, stations wouldn't be using them.

Some people might feel the best days of radio weren’t “live and local,”’ but the glory days of network radio. It all kind of depends on your era.

But that aside, using voice tracking and syndication is not killing anything. The number of people who care a whit...if they even know...where someone is based is small. They like the content they like. Just as I don’t long for a return to the days of Dialing for Dollars locally when Jeopardy suits me just fine. Using a mix of local and national content is a good business play for many scenarios, and it is after all a business.