On 22 Dec 2003 17:53:52 GMT, "M. Hale"
wrote:

Isn't the point to increase "Time Spent Listening" to be full 15 minute
blocks so the station gets credit for that? If you run two 10 minute
breaks, you can have 20 minutes of programming between them gaining 40
minutes Time Spent Listening over the course of the hour assuming one
comes back after the commercials.

Part of it is to get 2 quarter hours before listeners tune away. In
the case of the limited number of breaks, "research has shown" that
listeners are more aware of the number of elements than they are of
their length. A :60 is perceived the same as a :30. Each is an
element.

The hope is that listeners will perceive fewer elements in a limited
number of breaks than they would with more breaks with fewer spots.

When the breaks were 5 minutes it was tolerable. Now that the spots
seem to outnumber the songs, listeners are wearing out their radio's
presets. Especially young listeners. I have a couple of my young
nieces and nephews visiting. Not only do they change stations when a
single song they don't like plays, they immediately change stations
when a break begins. I thank MTV for creating generations with 3
second attention spans.

I asked why. They said "it'll be a long time before the music starts
again."

That's not something a programmer wants to hear.

Both radio and TV are so riddled with clutter that it amazes me anyone
stays tuned. Listen to your favorite station for an hour. Write down
every time a new element begins. Music, news, spots, promos, jingles
and jock chatter each constitutes an element.

TV has taken clutter to awesome heights, both aural and visual.
Vitually every channel has a "bug" supered over all but commercials.
Annoying as hell. During shows there's a crawl or a super about an
upcoming show. Crawls used to be used only for emergency information.
I can only imagine the anger of a movie director when he sees his
masterpiece splattered with material that destroys the mood he tried
to create. Often one super overlaps another.

Rich