David Eduardo wrote:
"RHF" wrote in message
...

- because we all live by the same metrics
- and information and sales realities.

Sales Reaities are NOT Listener Realities.

Actually, they are pretty much the same. No listeners, no sales results, no
sales. Serve the listener well, and you will be able to sell well if you
have a decent staff.


It sounds like a hellish cycle of life. Surely you can do better. I
liked radio better when it was run by newspaper dynasties and eccentric
old coots.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"RHF" wrote in message
...

- because we all live by the same metrics
- and information and sales realities.

Sales Reaities are NOT Listener Realities.

Actually, they are pretty much the same. No listeners, no sales results,
no sales. Serve the listener well, and you will be able to sell well if
you have a decent staff.
It sounds like a hellish cycle of life. Surely you can do better. I
liked radio better when it was run by newspaper dynasties and eccentric
old coots.

You likely were not alive when there was any significant newspaper ownership
of radio.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"RHF" wrote in message
...

- because we all live by the same metrics
- and information and sales realities.

Sales Reaities are NOT Listener Realities.

Actually, they are pretty much the same. No listeners, no sales results,
no sales. Serve the listener well, and you will be able to sell well if
you have a decent staff.
It sounds like a hellish cycle of life. Surely you can do better. I
liked radio better when it was run by newspaper dynasties and eccentric
old coots.

You likely were not alive when there was any significant newspaper ownership
of radio.


I remember when the Chronicle ownership was the same as KTRH and KLOL's.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/196608/houston-press/2

As was the Post's and KPRC.

Now all 3 stations suck and all 3 are owned by Clear Channel.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message
...
I can't imagine any of them saying anything different, because we all
live by the same metrics and information and sales realities.
You live in a reality of your own making.

It's the reality of our entire industry.
The "reality" of your "industry" is that when you try to run it like a
factory you ruin the product. You make crap because you have no idea what
you're doing. You forget the intangibles and let the number crunchers
pick the songs. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

Huh? In markets like LA, the one you are in, all the significant stations
let the listeners pick the music. And there is an incredible amount of
talent on the air, doing spontaneous, live and entertaining radio.





But none breaking new ground. Far be it from me to agree with
Rickets, but he makes the same point I do. Breaking new ground,
taking risks is not even on the radar, today. So, what the listeners
pick is what they hear, what sounds familiar, and with very few
exceptions, what they've come to expect from contemporary music.
More of the same. Different names. Different performers. Same
clothes, same sounds, same haircuts. Interchangeably, more of the same.

Occasionally, PD's I've worked for have taken a chance, and
added 'out of the box.' In one case, a test pressing, hand
delivered from the record label on the next block. And more often
than not, these wild card tunes blew holes in the dial. Such was the
result with a PD who knew his audience better than B-A, Lund, or
even, dare I say it...you.

What wears so thin, now, is that I can turn on the radio and
hear hot, new tunes that don't sound any different than anything
else that's been on the air in the last 18 months. Even the talk is
all the same. Not just the same topic, but the same spin...the same
opinions about the topic. Nothing I don't already know and haven't
already heard up and down the dial.

So, you're making your numbers. Wonderful. Spend it wisely. But
what I have been asking, what Telamon, Rickets, RHF and the rest of
us have been wondering is, when do are you going to do something for
the listeners?

Jeff Davis used to tell me that all program directors share the
same brain cell. Nowhere is that more apparent than on the radio,
today. And nowhere is it more apparent that it's going to exact a
terrible price in the years to come as more and more young people
abandon radio, entirely.

I've said, and you've agreed, that Radio, in the US, is always
about the money. Always been. But along the way, it's been about
US,too. Those of us with our ears tuned, our wallets open....but all
you've been able to vomit up in this group is what benefits YOU.
What's good for the numbers. Research. Ratings. Advertisers.
Numbers, numbers, numbers. All benefitting you. And only benefitting
you.

We matter, too, you know.

And don't give me that same tired noise about listeners mean
advertisers, and revenue, so we must be drawing listeners. You and I
both know that if you only have 5 stations in town, your listening
is going to be done to 5 stations. Listeners tune what's available.
They accept. And while they may accept what's now available, the
indications are that the future holds a very big surprise for Radio
as the audience finds alternatives that don't treat them like
Maxwellian points on a sales curve.

Stan Freberg had it right in 1958. Money trumps everything else.

And, as much as I like a Green Life$tyle, there are other things
of importance, as well. Something that's been discussed, now, for
years...by the public about the media.

Not just the old gasbags on this newsgroup, but the rest of the
listening universe out there, who've simply resigned themselves to
taking the homogenized pablum they're given, and making empty-eyed
raves about it in exchange for a tasteless slogan on a T-shirt.

Who's showing them the potential of Radio. The theatre of the
mind. The ability to bring new sound. New ideas. New blood.

Instead, we get overresearched playlists. Overresearched
personality types. Overresearched formatics. All homogenized into 5
radio stations cloned across the nation.

The very definition of creativity is that the creative product
hasn't been seen or heard before.

When does THAT start?

Because that hasn't been the case since John Sebastian ****ed up
KHJ.

When do we hear something we've not heard before? Because until
THAT happens....it's just what Spike O'Dell calls 'that kind of
radio up and down the dial.'

The radio you describe may be live, but it's anything but
spontaneous...and rarely entertaining. It's radio that's good for
YOU. It meets YOUR needs. But those listeners...they're just bodies.
Just books of numbers.

You need to see beyond the revenue stream.

Until you see us as individuals...listeners...human
beings....even allies...until you take your head out of your
research, and your P&L's and PPM figures, and look around you....

Until you see the human factors...beyond the numbers...your
message, here, will continue to fall on deaf ears.

And that's a shame.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:

But none breaking new ground. Far be it from me to agree with Rickets,
but he makes the same point I do. Breaking new ground, taking risks is not
even on the radar, today. So, what the listeners pick is what they hear,
what sounds familiar, and with very few exceptions, what they've come to
expect from contemporary music. More of the same. Different names.
Different performers. Same clothes, same sounds, same haircuts.
Interchangeably, more of the same.

Most stations that play currents add new songs with a certain regularity.
These are always songs listeners have never heard, since promo copies, even
with the internet, get to radio before anyone else.

Stations try to find songs that will sount right for the format but will
also give variety. Very often on the three separate times I have filled in
as acting PD of an LA AC, I have looked at what we are playing as currents
and then looked at potential adds for songs that do not sound too much like
the bulk of the list. That means looking for songs that add variety and
differentiation.

Obviously, the songs picked have to satisfy the PDs perception of what the
listener wants.

Of course, after a hundred or so plays, we let the listener tell us if they
are starting to like the song.

Most stations do the same thing. The reason is that the last 50 years of top
40 and contemporary formats ranging from alternative to country have shown
us that doing it any other way does not work. Some of us have tried it
themselves and learned a lessorn... or been fired... or we have watched
others do it..

Occasionally, PD's I've worked for have taken a chance, and added 'out
of the box.' In one case, a test pressing, hand delivered from the record
label on the next block. And more often than not, these wild card tunes
blew holes in the dial. Such was the result with a PD who knew his
audience better than B-A, Lund, or even, dare I say it...you.

Adding a song does one thing, as we have seen in 6 years of PPM.. it drives
listeners away. So we add songs because we know the list needs refreshing,
but we place the songs in between very high scoreing songs... and we stll
see listener loss on every new song.

BA is a Smooth Jazz consultant / syndicator, but mostly a research company.
I don't even know of any stations Lund has consulted. You have not even come
close to the major consultants in the US.

We've all played test pressings and been first on something... I was the
first to play Julio Iglesias outside Spain, for example. But when I did it,
I knew our main job was to play the listeners' favorite songs and have
entertaining jocks and good newscasts because I am not in the record
business and my job has always been to help sell spots, not records.

What wears so thin, now, is that I can turn on the radio and hear hot,
new tunes that don't sound any different than anything else that's been on
the air in the last 18 months.

I could say the same for almost all top 40 music from about 1956 to 1964. It
sounded the same, and the "innovations" were redocoration, not innovation.

So, you're making your numbers. Wonderful. Spend it wisely. But what I
have been asking, what Telamon, Rickets, RHF and the rest of us have been
wondering is, when do are you going to do something for the listeners?

In my case, we are providing more than just juke boxes with antennas....
live talent 24/7, training talent daily, morning shows that interview Obama
as well as recording artists. Innovative new formats on occasion.

Jeff Davis used to tell me that all program directors share the same
brain cell. Nowhere is that more apparent than on the radio, today. And
nowhere is it more apparent that it's going to exact a terrible price in
the years to come as more and more young people abandon radio, entirely.

Our strongest cell in 18-34. We aren't losing listeners because we are more
than, as I said, a jukebox.

Who's showing them the potential of Radio. The theatre of the mind. The
ability to bring new sound. New ideas. New blood.

Look at who is not declining in revenue. The answer is there... where
listenership is not off, and there is lots of innovation.

Instead, we get overresearched playlists. Overresearched personality
types. Overresearched formatics. All homogenized into 5 radio stations
cloned across the nation.

You can not talk too much to the listener. Talking to the listener is the
definition of research. So what you are saying is not to listen to the
listener and make decisions unilaterally... which is the height of
arrogance.

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:

But none breaking new ground. Far be it from me to agree with Rickets,
but he makes the same point I do. Breaking new ground, taking risks is not
even on the radar, today. So, what the listeners pick is what they hear,
what sounds familiar, and with very few exceptions, what they've come to
expect from contemporary music. More of the same. Different names.
Different performers. Same clothes, same sounds, same haircuts.
Interchangeably, more of the same.

Most stations that play....


Yada, yada, yada....


You make my point for me....you speak only out of your books.
What's good for you.

And you address nothing.

David Eduardo wrote:

Most stations that play currents add new songs with a certain regularity.
These are always songs listeners have never heard, since promo copies, even
with the internet, get to radio before anyone else.

Stations try to find songs that will sount right for the format but will
also give variety. Very often on the three separate times I have filled in
as acting PD of an LA AC, I have looked at what we are playing as currents
and then looked at potential adds for songs that do not sound too much like
the bulk of the list. That means looking for songs that add variety and
differentiation.

The magic doesn't happen in the top markets. Places like Phoenix and
San Antonio are much more cutting edge. I played a test pressing of "I
Can See for Miles" that was delivered by courier on a Saturday night
without even asking McMahon's permission first.

D Peter Maus wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:

But none breaking new ground. Far be it from me to agree with Rickets,
but he makes the same point I do. Breaking new ground, taking risks is not
even on the radar, today. So, what the listeners pick is what they hear,
what sounds familiar, and with very few exceptions, what they've come to
expect from contemporary music. More of the same. Different names.
Different performers. Same clothes, same sounds, same haircuts.
Interchangeably, more of the same.

Most stations that play....

Yada, yada, yada....

You make my point for me....you speak only out of your books.
What's good for you.

And you address nothing.

That's our 'Eduardo'!

dxAce wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:

But none breaking new ground. Far be it from me to agree with Rickets,
but he makes the same point I do. Breaking new ground, taking risks is not
even on the radar, today. So, what the listeners pick is what they hear,
what sounds familiar, and with very few exceptions, what they've come to
expect from contemporary music. More of the same. Different names.
Different performers. Same clothes, same sounds, same haircuts.
Interchangeably, more of the same.
Most stations that play....
Yada, yada, yada....

You make my point for me....you speak only out of your books.
What's good for you.

And you address nothing.

That's our 'Eduardo'!


Morning Ace. NOT my eduardo, i treat him like RHF, into
the "bit bucket". ya-know, now that i think of it; they
both act like know-it-all, irritant, argumentative, and
arrogant. could be the same person.

Drifter...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"Drifter" wrote in message
news wrote:

I wouldn't say overcrowded, it more conditions. 30 years ago, night-
time was all about the clears, and most local were low power at night.

There is practically no difference in night operation of AM in either
quantity or power of stations between 1978 and today.
30 years ago you could hear WLS in Los Angeles.

You still can when the UT station is off.

The changes that have taken place are all about the overall noise levels,
not with the stations themselves.



If WLS could still be heard in LA, if not for the co-channel interference,
then how could the overall noise level be the problem?

Frank Dresser