passion

[DavidEduardo]

Re: Lies, Damned Lies, and Research

1) You're assuming that the research isn't biased in one way or another. For example, specific music is selected for a test. You know nothing about the music that wasn't tested.

Every PD I know wants to test more songs than will fit in the time constraints of a test... they generally end up putting a hundred or two "what if" songs on every test, plus the on-air library. In the end, we only find a few songs that can go in... ususally songs that had temporary burn or songs on the young side of the target for stations that are trying to keep their demos stable by killing some old songs and adding some newer ones with each test.

Most of us have tested all possible songs many times. If it doe not test after several tries, it will never test.

[/quote]2) Most research targets the existing P1 audience of your station and/or your perceived competition. [/quote]

We test heavier users of the station or the format, as they are the only ones who willo know the music. Sometimes, with format adjustments or changes, we use sample pods to screen so that we get people who like some blend of our music, but may not know the station or that it has changed its blend.

It tells you little about the people who have already given up on radio

As multiple research projects show, iPod users are heavier users of radio, too. They are music fans, and just like CD collectors of the past, like music delivered in several forms. There are very very few people who have given up on radio; the cume percentage for all persons 18-54 in the PPM is the same as it was in the diary in 1965.

, or seek other entertainment because of the endless repetition and lack of variety.

Most people want to hear their favorite songs often, don't want to hear unfamiliar music, and perceive variety as "all my favorite sonngs" which means a couple of hundred tunes.

I am now fully aware you have never been through the process of recruiting, preparing for and doing a music test as it is obvious that you don't know that people do not ask for more songs (which they perceive as being bad songs) or new songs (songs they can not sing along with) or anything out of their comfort zone. The consistency of over 90% of listners in these qualities is easily seen and the failure of stations that do not get this is very usual.

In other words, you have little chance to grow the radio audience. At best, you may cause a small subset of the existing audience to shift their habits.

Most stations are concerned with not going down, and maybe getting a bit more in the way of quarter hours among the 6 or 7 stations the average listener has. Mostly, we are concerned with superserving our core... the half of our audience that gives us 92% of our listening time.

Look at results in the marketplace. Please explain why almost every market is dominated by the stations that have the most compelling live and local content to go with their music.

That is true in some cases, but look at the soft ACs with little talent presence... or the Beautiful Muisc stations of the 70's and 80's with tasped voice tracks and nothing else but #1 ratings! Each format has a different talent requirement... the #1 adult music station in LA has no DJs at all, and they are successful because they listened to the portion of the market that said they were sick of jocks and chatter.

As far as the "restaurant analogy" is concerned, you select the restaurant because you want steak for that meal. Even in the steak house, most people vary their orders each time they dine their. They select different cuts of beef, and different preparations. Exceptional restaurants offer dishes prepare dishes based on the freshest ingredients that are in season, so there is some variation. No, you don't go to a steak house and expect shark, but you also don't expect the "same-old same-old" every time you dine there.

Actually, if you inquire of a matre'd you will find that the regulars pick the same two or three dishes each time. I'm a pretty good Ruth's Chris customer, and I never eat anything but one thing... and friends I go with each have a favorite they select 9 times out of 10.

Remember, the average listener in the new world or ratings uses their favorite station 3 to 4 hours a week, and for about 40 minutes each time they tune in. If you do not hit those listeners with the best songs possible, they will go to a different station.

I think that most people percieve the entertainment value of radio has having declined significantly in the last 10-15 years. That's one of the reasons that stock prices have declined so sharply. Investors simply feel that the stations are not worth the value assigned to them - or paid - by broadcast management.

Investors see radio as old technology cash cows, not a growth industry. In the current market, now at a 2 year low, most of the solid cash producers are being punished badly. This has nothing to do with whether listeners do or don't find radio entertaining. Radio billing is flat or down, product mostly of the bad economy. There is likely a fabulous window of opportunity opening to buy these issues at depressed prices. When Clear pushes out several billion in EBITDA, we see big profits at some of the companies, and an opportunity to buy them cheap along with the drug sector and some of the consumer staples issues.

PS - It's hard to evaluate "talent" when you're allowed to crack the mic 4 times an hour, and all of those breaks are rigidly formatted and limited to the length of a pre-programmed music intro. How much time is spent on "talent development" by PD's who are chained to a computer running Selector for multiple stations, scheduling airshifts, attending meetings, and engaging in CYA paperwork to avoid being thrown under the bus by upper management, consultants, and/or corporate programmers?

Until you said "Selector" I thought you were talking about the 60's... erratic and volitile small owners with no benefits, multiple duties, including taking out the trash, unpaid remotes all weekend, and no stability. We just did not have computers, so music scheduling was done by the color dots and file cards. Heck, someone had to regularly replace the songs with cue burn in the studio and replace the needles on the tone arms.

 

[SirRoxalot]

More Kool-Aid? No Thanks...

David, your response is exactly what I expected from the biggest propagandist for corporate radio on this board.

The proof is in the results, which are declining daily. You continue to support the current methodology for research when empirical results indicate that the results are flawed. Radio is declining. Corporate "strategy" and over-reliance on "research" is the reason - along with a heavy dose of rationalizing results that don't fit that strategy.

You have proven numerous times that you will never allow anyone else to have the last word in a disagreement, so have at it. I believe that I've made my point.

PS - I'm sure that even you don't eat the same dish at any restaurant day after day after day.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Re: More Kool-Aid? No Thanks...

David, your response is exactly what I expected from the biggest propagandist for corporate radio on this board

Hardly. I spent most of my career with stations I owned myself or those of small, often family owned, groups and stations.

The proof is in the results, which are declining daily.

There is no cume decline. There is a very gradual TSL decline in some demos, less even in others. In an era where there are so many entertainment alternatives, radio has held up surprisingly well, despite the FCC doing all it could to make it unprofitable with things like Docket 80-90. You apparently don't realize the biggest cause of lower TSL is gaming, not iPods or web radio.

You continue to support the current methodology for research when empirical results indicate that the results are flawed.

There is no "empirical" result to support such a contention. Research simply consists of talking to listeners to find out what they want. There is no flaw in the methodology at all. I have done hundreds and hundreds of AMTs and perceptuals, and have done lots of experimentation in recruiting, questionnaires, song lists, replication studies, recruiter or interviewer bias, etc., etc. and there is no better way within the economics of radio to find out what listeners want to hear and what they don't.

Radio is declining. Corporate "strategy" and over-reliance on "research" is the reason - along with a heavy dose of rationalizing results that don't fit that strategy.

There is no such thing as knowing too much about your listeners, so there is no such thing as over-reliance on research.

You have proven numerous times that you will never allow anyone else to have the last word in a disagreement, so have at it. I believe that I've made my point.

Yes, your point appears to be that you have no idea how research is done, but since you can't find a station to your exact taste, the research has to be wrong.

Answer this: how many music tests have you ordered or even been at?

PS - I'm sure that even you don't eat the same dish at any restaurant day after day after day.

I don't go to the same restaruant each day. But my favorites are favorites for one single dish. In fact, I have flown 8000 miles just to have a favorite at a favorite restaurant...

 

[cheese]

Most of us do not know who we are. But, it is very apparent we want something different. Some of us, not you Mr. Eduardo believe with all our hearts that Radio is special. It's not just a another Wal-Mart or McDonalds success story. Radio is an art. Within our industry are talented men and women. Individuals that have the ability to alter the mindset of a listener and to make an honest to God connection. How many of you have or know a jock that has saved listeners life over the phone? Real jocks make them friends. David. did you ever really enjoy being on the air? Did you get it or were you just going thru the motions to be somebody "cool" or just to be able to say "In fact, I have flown 8000 miles just to have a favorite at a favorite restaurant" That is really sad. Where there is artistry there is commerce.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Cheese, save your breath. "David" has been everywhere, done everything, and has the only experience that counts. His is the ONLY answer. You WILL comply. Data is everything. Creativity is nothing. Anyone who tries to escape the box will be eliminated.

Thank goodness there are still programmers out there who have escaped the corporate mindset. Most of them are in small-to-medium markets - which are incidently the ones doing the best in today's broadcast economy.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Radio is an art.

Yes, it is art just as print ads and tv commercials are art. Art with the goal of making money while the artist is still alive; not purist but commercial. Radio is a business, and it is that business part that allows radio to be delievered for free.

Because of this, radio is part art and part science and all business.

How many of you have or know a jock that has saved listeners life over the phone?

I can't even start counting the times talents and stations that I have been involved with have helped save many many lives. Whether it is the relationship show I developed on a multi-station network where we constantly work with suicide and other hotlines to work with people who call the host they trust or the station that was the only one serving a community of 5 million to remain on the air after a major earthquake which immediately started obtaining food, shelter and blankets and clothes for thousands, this type of activity is much more common than you think.

David. did you ever really enjoy being on the air?

Yes, although I sucked. I only inflicted myself on listeners in the late 60's on FM when FM did not have much audience and I had a station I really didn't have much to do with... having fun is different from entertaining though. That's why I spent most of my time training others and have developed some talents that are major talents in major markets and as entertaining as anybody on the radio.

Did you get it or were you just going thru the motions to be somebody "cool" or just to be able to say "In fact, I have flown 8000 miles just to have a favorite at a favorite restaurant" That is really sad. Where there is artistry there is commerce.

One of the reasons I flew that distance was to rejoin after several years my staff from the highest cuming station in the Western Hemisphere.... jocks and talents who had mostly been fired from other stations who we collected to do a format nobody believed in (so we could not get any big name talents) and who helped make us #1 in a market of 17 million while I airchecked daily, even when I was in LA... until they were as good as anyone in the market!

Or perhaps I should tell you about the morning show I started 22 years ago in the Dominican Republic which has been #1 for that entire period with the two people I found and trained... also people who had been fired for their free spirits. The premise of the show, El Gobierno de la Mañana on Z 101, (The Morning Government) is to hold the real government accountable to the common people, the working class. It's not a comedy show, it is a social action show on a commercial station that gets shares that represent as many people as prime time TV because we started with the premise that the real people had no voice and we gave it to them.

Or maybe I should mention the pastoral station I designed for Cardenal Rickets Landazuri of Peru where we used a top 40 mechanic to run spiritual nuggets in between songs to reach people who had lapsed in their faith and would not normally use a religious station.

In other words, there is a different response to each situation... and the good programmer has to react in unique ways to each challenge... sometimes with considedrable risk to life.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Thank goodness there are still programmers out there who have escaped the corporate mindset. Most of them are in small-to-medium markets - which are incidently the ones doing the best in today's broadcast economy.

The smaller markets are doing a bit better because those markets have hardly any agency business. It's the agenecies, who place for companies like GM and Ford that are off, because their clients are the ones most affected by the current recession. It has nothing to do with the stations and everything to do with the economy.

 

[12 In a Row]

Expanding a playlist will NOT reduce TSL if you know the market and know your target audience. That's a consultant talking because they don't know the market and believe that their are only "300 safe songs" to play. WRONG. It's much easier to fly into town with your top secret 300 song playbook, they to really understand the wants and needs of the market. If you don't know how to work in, sell, sneak in, or "oh wow" your audience with some songs then you aren't a Program Director...you are a Program implementor. I'd love to Program across the street from someone with that mentality. I'd bury you.

I've programmed "the big list" against a tighter list, and lost horribly although I had been doing that format for over a decade... I thought my superior market knowlede and music background would allow me to win with "all the songs" that had been past hits.

I've also, quite recently, programmed the very tight list against a station that did an expanded list. We consistently won, by a margin of almost 10 to 1, over about 10 books until the other station changed formats.

Playing the right number of songs is what gives TSL. Playing less than right is as bad as more than right... one is fatiguing, the other is still-laden and destroys TSL.

Consultants don't determine the right number of songs, the local listeners do. It all depends on how many songs test positively (meaning they do more good than harm). Each format has a range... ACs will be around 300, Country around 600, CHR around 100, etc. Again, playing many more or less is wrong. Every format implementation has a sweet spot... and an AC in Birmingham may have a different sweet spot than an AC in Eugene... so looking at their playlist will reveal different numbers of songs in rotation.

I hear you David.

In the mid-90s our successful classic rock staton down the hall hired a hot shot know it all p.d.
He convinced the brass that classic rock listeners want more than 300 songs over and over again and he expanded the playlist to 2,000+!!!!!

You can easily guess what happened.

Station tanked, he was fired, back to the core 300, station recovers.
Thousands have tried it, thousands have failed.

 

[cheese]

I hear you David.

In the mid-90s our successful classic rock staton down the hall hired a hot shot know it all p.d.
He convinced the brass that classic rock listeners want more than 300 songs over and over again and he expanded the playlist to 2,000+!!!!!

You can easily guess what happened.

Station tanked, he was fired, back to the core 300, station recovers.
Thousands have tried it, thousands have failed.


Then your "hot shot know it all P.D. didn't know the market. Was he from there? DOUBT IT. Had he spent years interacting with the target audience? Was he just putting in HIS favorites? Did he even know the music? Any Classic Rock station that just plays the magical "core 300" will never dominate and will burn those songs. Please, don't tell me about some Classic Rock station you know "that plays the same 300 songs over and over again and owns the market." I'm really glad that folks like SirRoxalot and I didn't get in line when they poured the Kool-aid. I know it's easier when you're handed the play book and just have to connect the dots, but if you want a great radio station you may actually have to know what audience wants. Not just because your "focus group" or "data" tell you, but also because you have a freakin' brain. When did so many robots decide to work in Radio?

 

[SirRoxalot]

I, Robot

When did so many robots decide to work in Radio?

As I recall, it start with Bill Drake in the '60s, and really expanded as consultants (i.e. out-of-work corporate programmers) really expanded their reach in the '80s. When the bean counters discovered radio in the '90s, most of the soul was excised from the corporate level. Mechanization has filtered downward since then.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Re: I, Robot

As I recall, it start with Bill Drake in the '60s, and really expanded as consultants (i.e. out-of-work corporate programmers) really expanded their reach in the '80s. When the bean counters discovered radio in the '90s, most of the soul was excised from the corporate level. Mechanization has filtered downward since then.

I'm in utter amazement at the Drake statement. Did you ever listen, real time, to the amazing radio of PDs like Jacobs and Rounds, or the talents of Dorman, Dr. Don, Steele, Morgan and many others? Drake came in when Top 40 was getting stale and MOR-like, and created exciting stations where the talent was fun and concise.

There is a quote from Hamlet that says, "Brevity is the soul of wit." The Drake team made radio immensely better by increasing the pace of the stations using brevity combined with real personality. And, as was observed in the era, stations that imitated the brevity without the personality and the content failed.

If you think that Drake was the cause of bad things like the loss of personality, you just know nothing about radio and are spouting off with no connection to the very best in contemporary radio.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Then your "hot shot know it all P.D. didn't know the market. Was he from there? DOUBT IT. Had he spent years interacting with the target audience?

You know, most of the successful innovations those occasional "worst to first" station explosions were don by folks who were not from the market where the great events happened.

To a great extent, this was because in the 50's and 60's one's career could only grow by moving up in market size. So nearly nobody was from the same market they worked in.

Was he just putting in HIS favorites? Did he even know the music? Any Classic Rock station that just plays the magical "core 300" will never dominate and will burn those songs.

Most classic rockers are in the 500 song range, give or take. And the rotations are planned in accordance with TSL to avoid burn. If you look at things today, an average TSL of around 3 to 4 hours means that the average listener will hear each song once every few weeks. Since there are some songs listeners want to hear more often, we speed up some songs so that they come up more often as every two weeks is not often enough.

Please, don't tell me about some Classic Rock station you know "that plays the same 300 songs over and over again and owns the market."

I'l tell you about a story that blows out all your comments. I had never been in Argentina other than to visit prior to 1999, when I was asked to consult a format change. On my first visit, I determined the format within a day of being there, and we reearched the library by testing 1500 songs. We ended up with a core of 450 songs representing the best of classic Argentine rock. Station went on in the third week of April of 2000 with unknown talent we had trained with lots of dry runs and airchecks, and in the May book it was #1... and after 8 years it still is.

Non-local programmer, unknown talent carefully trained and coarched, thight playlist. The leading paper, Clarin (Circulation of 1.2 million) siad, "It took a foreigner to show Aregentines that we really liked our own (rock) music."

but if you want a great radio station you may actually have to know what audience wants. Not just because your "focus group" or "data" tell you, but also because you have a freakin' brain. When did so many robots decide to work in Radio?

A focus group is actually a round table of 8 to 12 listeners following a moderately structure agenda where, for an hour or so, all aspects of radio usage by the listeners is discussed. Generally, a station would do a number of these sessions to get enough different people to be able to find the consensus issues and the non-satisfiable indivuidual issues.

A focus group (or individual interviews) is the best way to go from anecdotal comments to a statistically based sample of the opinions of the group a station wants to satisfy.

All that "data" and "focus group" stuff you dismiss is really the act of talking to listeners and finding out what they want, not what some arrogant PD thinks they want without asking about it.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Re: I, Robot

As I recall, it start with Bill Drake in the '60s,

Since you think Drake is evil (bizarre, to say the least) read this....

http://www.johnnymannsingers.com/th...b51c70872ea6=4f309ce1dce20d026872969514101b94

 

[SirRoxalot]

Bizarre?

I lived through the Drake era, and people like Charlie Tuna, Dr. Don Steele, and others succeeded in spite of Drake. They were entertainers, and superceded the boundaries of the format. BTW, they didn't come up as Drake jocks, they adapted their talents to the restrictions imposed on them - and likely had daily discussions with program directors about stretching the boundaries of the format.

There were many stations that successfully competed with Drake stations with much more imaginative formats. The Drake stations were likely one of the reasons that FM music radio flourished from the late '60s on because of people looking for alternatives to the Drake sound. Also, the Drake format often burned quickly. They came on with a bang, but faded as time went on. In a city like LA where a 4-share is huge, it's a hit. In many markets, a 4-share makes you an also-ran.

MANAGEMENT loved Drake - and Fake-Drake formats because it largely de-emphasized the input of air personalities, and allowed them to reduce talent costs. Yes, there were exceptions, but most Drake-style formats were adopted by owners who didn't want to pay the big dollars - or have the big headaches - of riding herd on personality jocks. Drake-type stations, and Rick Sklar's WABC NY had huge cumes, but the shortest TSL of any station in the market. Sound familiar? They practically invented the art of button-pushing, which hardly made advertisers happy.

Your admiration for Drake-style radio tells me more about YOU than it does about Drake's influence on radio today. There are plenty of others - starting with the late Jackson Armstrong - who dispute your OPINION on the evolution of radio to its current state. Perhaps it's time for YOU to broaden your perspective and realize that TALENT plays a major part in whether a station is a winner or a loser.

PS - I should really have referenced Gordon McClendon as the father of repetitive, corporate-controlled radio disseminated to multiple stations in multiple markets. Drake really McClendon's short-handed format and reduced opportunities to entertain even further. In fact, if it weren't for McClendon, Drake, Sklar, and others FM radio might never have found an audience beyond audiophiles and classical music snobs.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Re: Bizarre?

I lived through the Drake era, and people like Charlie Tuna, Dr. Don Steele, and others succeeded in spite of Drake. They were entertainers, and superceded the boundaries of the format. BTW, they didn't come up as Drake jocks, they adapted their talents to the restrictions imposed on them - and likely had daily discussions with program directors about stretching the boundaries of the format.

This post of yours is just full of revisionist history. The jocks like Steele (who was "The Real Don Steele" and not "Dr. Don Steele") and Morgan and Dr. Don ROSE and others were selected for their ability to put lots of content in very few words. It's sort of the difference between the Gettysburg Address and one of Fidel Castro's speeches.

The PDs gave guidance on stationality, on energy level and how to integrate personality into the station identity. The Drake PDs were exceptional in their ability to bring out more personality in less time than the stations Drake and his team competed with like WCOP, KEWB, KFWB, KRLA, WMPS, etc.

There were many stations that successfully competed with Drake stations with much more imaginative formats.

No, there were not. KFWB went news, and KRLA rolled over with its illegal ownership issues. WMPS was an also-ran, and WCOP was just killed by WRKO. There was nothing in the Ontario, Michigan, indiana and Ohio area that compared with CKLW, which killed WXYZ and other Detroit Top 40's. In SF, KEWB and KYA became also rans and eventually changed formats while Drake was still doing the consulting and guidance.

The Drake stations were likely one of the reasons that FM music radio flourished from the late '60s on because of people looking for alternatives to the Drake sound.

FM did not flourish in the late 60's. It was not until 1967 that simulcasts had to end, and it was not until 1977 that FM began having higher shares than AM... that was the late 70's, not the late 60's. The leading FM format of the late 60's and early 70's was beautiful music, which had 20 shares in NY, for example, in 1972 while Top 40 had less than 10.

Also, the Drake format often burned quickly. They came on with a bang, but faded as time went on. In a city like LA where a 4-share is huge, it's a hit. In many markets, a 4-share makes you an also-ran.

KHJ had double digit shares from 1965 when it debuted well into the early 70's. That is hardly a short run. Look at CKLW and WRKO, which were leaders well into the 80's (WRKO was #1 through 1980 and so was CKLW). Eventually, the advantasges of FM took over, but these were all big, big stations for more than a decade... sometimes a decade and a half... beyond the point where RKO was required to sell the stations and Drake was generally not involved.

There was nothing since the birth of Top 40 in Omaha in 1952 like the excitement, energy and magic of the original Drake stations.

MANAGEMENT loved Drake - and Fake-Drake formats because it largely de-emphasized the input of air personalities, and allowed them to reduce talent costs.

Jeeze. In the mid 60's in LA, SF, Boston, SF, Detroit, etc., there was no station paying talent more than the RKO staitons. And there were no more talented people than the lineups at those stations.

Yes, there were exceptions, but most Drake-style formats were adopted by owners who didn't want to pay the big dollars - or have the big headaches - of riding herd on personality jocks.

The stations that adopted the Drake formatics correctly did so because they know that the high energy personality of such a format would kill the competition.

Drake-type stations, and Rick Sklar's WABC NY had huge cumes, but the shortest TSL of any station in the market. Sound familiar? They practically invented the art of button-pushing, which hardly made advertisers happy.

Oh, bull.

Top 40 always had short TSL and immense cume. That's what you get with a format all kinds of people use along with several other stations. In fact, it is the purpose and goal of Top 40 (renamed CHR by R&R) to get high TSL.

There are three ways to get good share... high cume, low TSL, low TSL and high cume, or average cume and average TSL. All result in the same share. Advertisers love CHR because they get very good reach and frequency with a single station buy. And advertisers don't care how you get share... the rate is based on CPP, not TSL. If you deliver a 1.3 rating with 4 hours TSL or a 1.3 rating with 8 hours TSL, the advertiser is going to go with the one that adds cume, too, although the cost per point is the same for both.

On this point, you are so wrong as to be ridiculous. Again: Top 40 is supposed to get high cume and low TSL or it would not be Top 40.

Your admiration for Drake-style radio tells me more about YOU than it does about Drake's influence on radio today. There are plenty of others - starting with the late Jackson Armstrong - who dispute your OPINION on the evolution of radio to its current state. Perhaps it's time for YOU to broaden your perspective and realize that TALENT plays a major part in whether a station is a winner or a loser.

And talent was nopalce better showcased than on the true Drake stations. I flew to LA from South America in '65 to hear KHJ. I adapted my loose, personalty gone wild Top 40 to a more structured approach and the talent sounded better and the ratings increased (as unbelievable as it was to increase even more than the 20-some shares we had). The talent loved the greater guidance and structure, and were better able to plan their shows so the high points were well spread across a show and the listener always wanted to come back for more.

PS - I should really have referenced Gordon McClendon as the father of repetitive, corporate-controlled radio disseminated to multiple stations in multiple markets.

No, you shouldn't have had because you would have been wrong. Todd Storz created, with Bill Stewart, Top 40 in Omaha and put it on his single station, a daytimer, in August of 1952. He was so successful he later bought stations in New Orleans, Mppls, Kansas City Oklahoma City, St Louis and Miami where he was equally successful because he combined the top 40 hits of the day with real personality jocks in an era when radio was mostly network and block programmed.

McLendon did not hesitate to imitate the formula on his small Texas group, although for a while he was considered a renagade and many traditional broadcasters widely criticized him for what he did.

Drake really McClendon's short-handed format and reduced opportunities to entertain even further. In fact, if it weren't for McClendon, Drake, Sklar, and others FM radio might never have found an audience beyond audiophiles and classical music snobs.

McLendon, Storz and others saved radio at the time that it was dying as Freeze was lifted and made it vaible again. Your view of history is just incredibly and painfully wrong.

 

[gr8oldies]

I guess we have to have this discussion from now until the end of time. I can almost recite it by rote.

1. No one wants to hear their favorite songs, but if you play tons of obscure and unknown songs, ratings will soar. The fact that it has never, ever worked anywhere it's been tried only means that that programmer didn't do it right.

2. PDs shouldn't do any research. I guess the PD is supposed to "just know" without asking anyone other than 10 of his closest friends and the folks at the record collector's convention. And frequent request callers. In fact, just play his favorite songs. (If radio research is so flawed, why doesn't anyone propose how it can be done better, not say "don't do any").

3. We have to compete for the few listeners who actually have 10000 songs on their iPod. (Don't worry...no matter what, stations would pick the "wrong" 10000 songs). Don't suppose their was anyone in the late 60s who refused to listen to anything but their Jefferson Airplane albums.

In reality, the only thing that matters is what you're playing RIGHT NOW. Sorry, in a 20 minute drive to work if I'm playing the hits and you're playing 20 minutes of unknowns, I win. Much as some of you will argue that that the listeners will be saying "oh wow..I hope they play unfamiliar songs all day"..they won't. Try jocking a wedding or a dance and deciding you're not going to play music people want to dance to and you're going to play "far out album cuts" see how quickly you get booed off the stage. (Happened to me in high school because I had the same attitude..at one of my first stations I decided unilaterally that everyone was sick of one of the big hits and pulled it and did I hear from the audience).

As far as "real broadcasters" getting these stations, you know what...I said the same thing in 1975. Smaller markets were owned largely by car dealers, insurance agents and other "non radio" people, and the big markets were owned by insurance companies, banks and tire companies. Hardly "real radio people". Even if a couple of jocks could then or now buy a station, they quickly learned or would learn today that you have to make the bills, you have to pay the bank back (and the bank wants to know why you want to spend 500000 a year in personnel costs and not bring in automation...and yes, they know about that). That means knowing your audience (I know..we can't do "research"..it's ee-vil) and delivering a product they'll listen to. And no, it doesn't mean deciding you're only going to cater to people who have 100000 LPs in their basement.

And please...blasting Bill Drake? Guess we should still be listening to the cowbell ringers. Also, at my favorite restaurant, I pretty much have 3 favorites, and so do most people I know. Bob Evans even refernced it in a commercial "he says he's not going to order catfish but he always does".

 

[DavidEduardo]

I guess we have to have this discussion from now until the end of time. I can almost recite it by rote.

Wow. Magnificent post.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Those who will not see...

David, you consistently confuse your OPINION with FACT.

You are familiar with Drake stations in some markets, and not so familiar with others. Personality-oriented stations like WCFL and WLS in Chicago, WKBW in Buffalo (and most of the east coast at night), CKLW (which offered a much more full service approach with a serious news department) and others flourished for a long time before FM finally drew away their music listeners.

Your assessment of the FM time line MAY be true of the markets you're familiar with, but "underground" FM - which evolved into AOR and ultimately Classic Rock - certainly was making waves in the early '70s. In fact, there were a number of Top 40 AMs that made adjustments to the challenge of FM stations in the early '70s.

Gr8, I don't know of anyone here who advocated 1000 song playlists, or "20 minutes of unknowns".

The bottom line is that radio is bleeding listeners, and TSL is falling. A new approach is necessary. Dan Mason at CBS-FM in NYC is hot right now because he recognizes that the "business as usual" isn't working so well anymore. Radio station values are dropping, and stock holders feel that they've been fleeced.

Stay with your old ways if you wish. Radio will die a slow death that's painful for both employees and stockholders. Or, adapt, revitalize, and make radio important to LISTENERS again, and all can prosper.

Assuming, of course, that mega-moguls don't figure out how to sell off the bandwidth for paid digital subscription services.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Re: Those who will not see...

David, you consistently confuse your OPINION with FACT.

This is an amazing statement coming from the person who called Gordon McLendon the instigitator of evil corporate radio. For your information, McLendon was one of the few who was able to keep an independent AM afloat before Top 40 roared on the stage in 1952. He did it at KLIF by doing things like recreating ball games from the wire service inning by inning accounts and similar things at the twilight of the AFM prohibitions or limitations on recorded music.

You should read Garay's scholarly* biography of McLendon and see how much of a pioneer of today's radio he was, introducing things like the amazing Beautiful Music KABL in San Francisco and America's first all news AM using the facilities of XETRA in Mexico... a true innovator and independent thinker.

* "Scholarly" indicates the book's ´facts are fully footnoted and sourced. It's still available from Amazon and very much worth the investment.

You are familiar with Drake stations in some markets, and not so familiar with others.

I am familiar with all of them, right down to Scooter Seagraves' KAKC-970 in Oklahoma. Drake could never touch WGMS, although he dearly wanted to, but CKLW, WHBQ, WRKO, CKLW, KFRC and KHJ were industry legend and available in long form and in short form on airchecks back in those days.

Personality-oriented stations like WCFL and WLS in Chicago, WKBW in Buffalo (and most of the east coast at night),

None were Drake consulted, but defintely influenced by his style.

CKLW (which offered a much more full service approach with a serious news department) and others flourished for a long time before FM finally drew away their music listeners.

All the Drake stations had news. CKLW was not that much different... except for having a slightly greater news requirement due to its Canadian licence (it died more due to CanCon than to anything else). Remember, the RKO stations were force-sold due to the General Tire foreign bribery case that rendered them unfit as licensees.

Your assessment of the FM time line MAY be true of the markets you're familiar with, but "underground" FM - which evolved into AOR and ultimately Classic Rock - certainly was making waves in the early '70s. In fact, there were a number of Top 40 AMs that made adjustments to the challenge of FM stations in the early '70s.

I am familiar with essentially all the large and medium market stations, both at the time and via my collection of over 5000 Broadcasting Magazines... Top 40's like KRIG and KLEO and KQEO and KERN and KENO and KELP and KSJB are as interesting to me as that WQAM - WFUN battle in Miami or KILT vs KENR in Houston.

The first FM CHRs were "adapted" simulcasts of daytimers like WPGC in DC (lit up a big FM stick in 1969). Then we got a rash of them in 1972 with WMYQ, KSLQ, WDRQ and WERC-FM (of which I was PD). Some worked, quite a few lasted only a year or two, as FM shares and revenue were not huge. A few years later, with staitons like WHYI in Miami, FM CHR stayed to dominate.

The bottom line is that radio is bleeding listeners,

No, listenership is as big a percentage of the population as it was 20 years ago.

and TSL is falling.

No, it's slowly eroding for reasons that have nothing to do with programming.

A new approach is necessary.

So far, you have told us we don't know how to program, manage or do research without giving one suggestion or idea.

Dan Mason at CBS-FM in NYC is hot right now because he recognizes that the "business as usual" isn't working so well anymore.

Mason is a fool who wants to push out PPM before the sample is proportional. I think history will show he is makiing more mistakes than correct decisions.

Radio station values are dropping,

The value of GE, in real dollars, is half what it was 10 years ago. The market is off nearly 40% in the last 9 months. You are generalizing without any kind of real knowledge of the behaviour and pricing of equities.

Stay with your old ways if you wish. Radio will die a slow death that's painful for both employees and stockholders. Or, adapt, revitalize, and make radio important to LISTENERS again, and all can prosper.

The next steps for radio have to do with delivery of content, moving away from towers on the nearest hill to newer thechnologies like WiMax. Stations that have valuable content will survive and do well. The miserable limited coverage AM daytimers and irectionals will be the first to go, followed by all manner of rimshots and weak FMs...

 

[SirRoxalot]

Once again, David is all-knowing, and all-seeing... Rather than joust with you over matters of OPINION (i.e. there are MANY other points of view), let's get back to the original topic:

What's happened to passion in radio.

David was spot on with his link to a legendary Top 40 radio war. Let's see what happened there:

1) Big money was spent on programming. Great jocks were brought in, paid well, and allowed to perform.

2) Big money was spent on promotions. Cash contests, street teams, remotes, lots of visibility, and likely advertising in other media to get the word out.

3) Big money was spent on jingles and imaging to help create stationality and further excitement.

Let's look at today's radio:

1) Programming costs have been slashed. Would any of the legendary programmers of the past have responded to a challenge by cutting live bodies and bringing in syndication? We have people who brag that "my syndicated show beats your syndicated show". Would they have simulcast KHJ or WABC in 30 markets, and expected it to serve a local audience?

2) Promotions budgets have been cut to the bone. Experienced promotions people have been let go, and replaced by newbies simply because they work cheaper. Either that, or they've had their time split between two, three, or four stations instead of concentrating on one.

The percentage of radio station budgets directed toward programming is a fraction of what it was prior to consolidation. The percentage of radio station budgets directed toward promotions is a fraction of what it was prior to consolidation. The percentage of radio station budgets directed toward engineering is a fraction of what it was prior to consolidation. Even sales people have taken significant hits as commission rates are constantly restructured and lists are reworked.

What's gone up? Three things - ad rates, debt service, and "executive compensation". The very people who seriously overpaid for radio properties in an attempt create mini-monopolies, driving up debt service and forcing up ad rates, are the one benefitting from their practices.

Programming personel are told to "shut up and be happy that you still have a job", and are more likely to be offered a pay cut than a raise when contract time comes up. If talent is offered a raise, it comes along with a directive to VT additional shows for additional stations or makets for little or no extra compensation. Program directors are given the responsibility for additional stations, with no additional compensation.

Sales people are told to "shut up and be happy that you still have a job" as their lists are shuffled, and commissions are restructured to reduce compensation. Some senior account execs have been fired because "they made too much money". Many have fled the industry because of changes in management requirements dictated by corporate.

Production people are fewer, with greater responsibilities. Digital editing is much more efficient, but the amount of creativity you can expect from a single person is finite. The portion of the budget dedicated to imaging and creative services is a fraction of what it was before consolidation.

In short, everybody EXCEPT top executives are being asked to do much more with much less. Many people are being worked mercilessly, effectively for less real compensation than they got before consolidation. Positions that paid 40K in 1990 are STILL paying 40K, despite rises in the cost of living, etc.

You want passion? Get people talking about why their job SUCKS. Or, more commonly, why the got OUT of radio.

Get out of your office, David. Get down into the trenches as see what's REALLY going on out here.