Playlists & Local DJ's

[BigHoss]

I put this on another thread and probably should of started a new one so here goes:

I am not a radio pro...just a pro listener I guess. To date myself I have heard Wolfman-Jack live before but pretty much grew up in the 60-70's on the Texas Gulfcoast.

Today I prefer antique rock as I call it from the 60-70's and wish there was more of it.

I guess I am a dying breed who likes broad play lists and local live dj's, who can comment on local things.

Do I have much hope with this type of format surviving much longer? In Houston is is about dead with all the termoil of late.

And why are the playlist so short? Man it seems like 20-30 songs over and over.

Thanks for any input...an old time workin' stif 'preciates it!

Robert in Houston

 

[rickradio]

Well, since no one else appears to be biting, I guess I'll take my lone stab at it...

First, you're like me, Hoss, you like broad playlists and live, local jox...be it ever so humble, but in my opinion, live 'n' local is what gives radio its soul. In fact, that's how radio USED to be. Not saying that there's no place for syndication, but it should be there to accent your programming, not comprise your programming.

Next, the broad playlist is, sadly, a thing of the past, at least at corporate-owned stations. But the big playlist went the way of the hula hoop because of the idea that more listeners can be had if we pare down the playlist to just the songs that were **more** popular. But the flaw in this logic is that it's all numbers-driven. This song was more popular than that one because it got more requests at stations, was added by more stations, and sold more copies at stores, therefore, was ranked higher. There is some justification to this method of determining popularity, but simply going by what charted high nationally can be very self-limiting, as evidenced by the question/thread you posted. People don't just like music that made the so-called Top 20, 30 or 40. There are songs that never made the Top 100 that are intrinsically good. And I haven't even mentioned music that distinctly has a regional appeal to it. If stations were smart, they would widen their playlists to include these songs, whatever they may be, and limit the role of the consultant to that: a consultant (if you even choose to have one), and not rely on him as your Program Director from afar.

 

[DavidEduardo]

But the flaw in this logic is that it's all numbers-driven. This song was more popular than that one because it got more requests at stations, was added by more stations, and sold more copies at stores, therefore, was ranked higher. There is some justification to this method of determining popularity, but simply going by what charted high nationally can be very self-limiting, as evidenced by the question/thread you posted. People don't just like music that made the so-called Top 20, 30 or 40. There are songs that never made the Top 100 that are intrinsically good. And I haven't even mentioned music that distinctly has a regional appeal to it. If stations were smart, they would widen their playlists to include these songs, whatever they may be, and limit the role of the consultant to that: a consultant (if you even choose to have one), and not rely on him as your Program Director from afar.

The consultant does not pick the songs, nor does the PD (except for currents if a station plays them, and then only while the training wheels are still on). Songs are not picked off old chartes or Whitburn books.

Listeners pick the songs. They also tell a station what songs they don't like, and the ones that are simply somewhere in the neutral area.

Local hits of another era or decade are likely to not work today, as Americans move a lot, and many of the listeners today will not know those local hits, even if the "locals" remember them fondly... a rarity with local hits.

And the songs that are liked today will not necessarily be the ones that are liked tomorrow... so the listeners have to be consulted fairly frequently.

 

[DavidEduardo]

And why are the playlist so short? Man it seems like 20-30 songs over and over.

If you listen to a Top 40 station, you should expect to hear a short list.

Still, the CHRs today will play 100 to maybe 120 songs as a norm... far more than a Top 40 of the late 60's and early 60's.... which played 30 or 40 songs.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio corporations get a lot of criticism for the size of playlists, but the real blame should go to Todd Storz.

Todd was a radio owner in Nebraska. One day, he and his PD were in a bar, and noticed how the patrons kept playing the same songs in the jukebox over and over. There were many songs in the jukebox. Just that there were only a select few they wanted to hear. And their willingness to hear them again and again was limitless. It was this discovery that led to Top 40 radio. And it didn't happen as a result of consolidation or consultants. It happened in 1949. This concept was refined by Gordon McLendon in Texas in the 60s. Then of course you have Bill Drake and Rick Sklar.

In case you think this experience was limited to jukeboxes or the 50s, I suggest you go to any bar or club in America today. In fact, I went to a local bar just the other day, and the cover band was playing "Don't Stop Believing" by Journey. What was the #1 request? "Free Bird." Ask any cover band how large their repertoire is, and they'll say it's fewer than 100 songs. Why? Because more than that is unnecessary.

Yes, I understand there is an audience of music lovers who hate limitations on playlists or genres. They want access to every song ever recorded. I'm one of those people, and I've found every song I've ever wanted to hear (including some of the most obscure local bands) on YouTube! I can hear them on demand, and quite often accompanied by video. The reality is that I'm part of a very small minority. Radio stations don't program to small minorities, but to the masses. The masses don't like unfamiliar music. They want to hear the hits, and they don't tire of hearing them over and over, as Todd Storz discovered 60 years ago.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Radio corporations get a lot of criticism for the size of playlists, but the real blame should go to Todd Storz.

Todd was a radio owner in Nebraska. One day, he and his PD were in a bar, and noticed how the patrons kept playing the same songs in the jukebox over and over. There were many songs in the jukebox. Just that there were only a select few they wanted to hear. And their willingness to hear them again and again was limitless. It was this discovery that led to Top 40 radio.

http://www.davidgleason.com/KOWH_Birth_of_Top-40.htm has a very early (1953) ad from KOWH in Omaha ad from Broadcasting Magazine.

 

[elchupacabras]

Local hits of another era or decade are likely to not work today, as Americans move a lot, and many of the listeners today will not know those local hits, even if the "locals" remember them fondly... a rarity with local hits.

David, I would agree with you on Anglo radio, but Hispanic radio (especially Regional Mexican) does produce a little more "localized" flavor. 90 percent of the playlist on the local level typically synchronizes with that of what is being played on the national scene, but there are a few exceptions, emphasis on FEW. Also, the listeners native state dictates what "flavor" is emphasized. One from Jalisco may want more ranchera, one from Michoacan or Guerrero wants more "Tierra Caliente."

 

[DavidEduardo]

Radio corporations get a lot of criticism for the size of playlists, but the real blame should go to Todd Storz.

Todd was a radio owner in Nebraska. One day, he and his PD were in a bar, and noticed how the patrons kept playing the same songs in the jukebox over and over. There were many songs in the jukebox. Just that there were only a select few they wanted to hear. And their willingness to hear them again and again was limitless. It was this discovery that led to Top 40 radio.

http://www.davidgleason.com/KOWH_Birth_of_Top-40.htm has a very early (1953) ad from KOWH in Omaha ad from Broadcasting Magazine.

Ooops... I found some nice links, and added them and moved the page to http://www.davidgleason.com/Broadcasting Feature Article KOWH Omaha.htm

 

[One Who Knows]

I can appreciate the feelings of people who'd like to hear "deep playlists".

However, stations that do music research, believe it or not, test 700 to 1,000 songs. Then when you sort them out, you can't find more than about 300-500 songs (depending on format) that more than about 60 to 70 percent of the test audience likes well enough to play. (The theory being if a song doesn't appeal to two thirds of your audience...why would you play it? You could be losing a third of your audience playing a "bad song".)

I'm not trying to be nasty here - but the stations that play "deep playlists" consistently get their rear ends beaten by more tested, focused stations. Like the unheard stuff? That's what i-Pod's are good for.

 

[Megacycler]

Good discussion going on here.
I can testify that CHR stations in the 80's generally also had short current lists of 30 songs or so. Why? Because it worked. It appeared for awhile at least that the faster the rotation and the smaller the playlist, the higher the cumes would go. The previously cited figure of 100-120 songs (including recurrents and gold) for CHRs of today seems to be the same as that in the 80s. Notable exceptions would be Mike Joseph's consulted stations which initially had no recurrents or gold and small market stations with less competition that had larger libraries. Generally speaking, it seemed to me that the larger the market, the tighter the belt was wrapped around the playlist.

I'd like to add a little twist to the Todd Storz story. The actual term "TOP 40" may have arisen due to a show by the name of "The Hit Parade" that aired on Storz' competitor, WDSU radio in New Orleans. It seems the Hit Parade played the top 20 hits of the day and was very popular on WDSU. Storz said his station, WTIX, would be twice as good because it would play the top 40 instead.

 

[JimmyJames]

"Like the unheard stuff? That's what i-Pod's are good for."

So how do I find out what "unheard stuff" is worth putting on my IPod?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

"Like the unheard stuff? That's what i-Pod's are good for."

So how do I find out what "unheard stuff" is worth putting on my IPod?

Though I personally do not choose to listen to stations playing only music, and a tight, short playlist, I offer this bit of contrarian logic:

You question is not radio's problem or radio's job. As a practical matter radio does well by finding the formula that creates the largest audience that will give them the most average listening time.

If I like Accordian polka music of the flavor popular in Wisconsin or Nebraska and I want it on my iPod, that is not radios duty or opportunity.

If musicians and record companies feel that it is in their best financial interest to see that you get unheard music on your iPod, that is the job of the music industry. They don't seem to be spending very many sleepless nights worrying about your wants and needs.

Maybe that would be Apple's job? Or some other maker of mp3 players who wants you to carry their hardware instead of an iPod.

 

[JimmyJames]

I understand your point and I've programmed very mainstream formats. But radio to some degree has always been a huge catalyst for exposing new music of whatever their respective format is.

My position isn't that radio should be entirely unfamiliar, but I think in many situations there is a lot of value to being a source that carries with it credibility for what's going on in the lifestyle of the audience, be it an event or a new song, and I think at times, we've allowed that position to be usurped by other media.

I'm enough of an optimist to want to look at ways to remain as relevant as possible to my audience. If that means stepping out more with new songs, revisiting the classics or anything else, I don't believe now is the time to let "conventional wisdom" completely dictate these decisions or keep me from taking a chance.