Passionate About Music
Written Aug. 12, 2009 by Larry Rosin in Content + Terrestrial Radio with 10 Comments
Recently the radio consultant Alan Burns has gotten quite a lot of attention for his content analysis of Top 40 and Adult Contemporary stations. His basic conclusion is that radio stations are so cluttered with messaging about sales promotions, contests, and other efforts, that all else (and anything that is truly important to the listener) is crowded out.
This was a very valuable piece of analysis for radio programmers in that it inspired a lot of debate about how we are to interpret the results. And wouldn't it be great if someone could go into the way-back machine and see how this analysis would have looked ten, twenty and thirty years ago?
Mark Ramsey wrote on his blog:
This conclusion assumes a premise: Namely, that an audience will be passionate about a station's music if the station is passionate about its own music. Further, this argument assumes that the station will be more popular if it's more enthusiastic about its own music.Unfortunately, there's no proof provided that either of these premises is correct. Both are only assumptions. (emphasis his)
Well, fair enough. I don't have the proof whether talking more about the music and less about the Web site and remotes will improve a station's ratings either.
But both Alan's study and Mark's critique got me to thinking about what radio really means in this broad world of millions of options to distract oneself, and so many new options just over the horizon.
When you look at AM/FM Radio's advantages and disadvantages, how can we not assume that the existence of DJs (at least on an overwhelming-but-shrinking majority of stations) is maybe number two to distribution in the list of advantages? The number of options for DJ-free radio continue to explode, but most research says that listeners like DJs. (Of course, the same research will show that people don't like bad DJs or random chatter, but I think that still proves the point.)
So what DO we want those DJs who are not providing morning-style entertainment to do? Well, deep down, don't we want them to go back to what they once did, or what at least our rosy-colored memories think they once did: setting up the songs, explaining why they are good or special, telling us who wrote them (if that's interesting) or whatever would connect the audience to the songs they are hearing?
I recall a long-ago focus group for an AC radio station where a woman mentioned that the then-current hit "Tears in Heaven" moved her so when she thought about the meaning of the lyrics. All the other women said: "What is it about?" At which point it dawned on me that the station had likely never allowed its liner-reading jocks to say anything about the song. Even twenty years ago AC stations had already reined their DJs in to saying nothing.
And yet, an enormous percentage of the listeners to FM music radio still believe in the romantic notion that the DJs are picking the songs. Despite everything they have in front of them to make them believe otherwise, they still hold on. Huge percentages of the audience still turn to radio to learn about new music.
Yesterday Tom wrote on this blog about playlists being a unique way for a radio station to distinguish itself, as it is the kind of thing one would expect a radio-station DJ to be really good at. But, of course "playlists" has sadly become an epithet, usually paired with the word "Corporate." But again, don't we want -- at least on some level -- to believe that our DJs are choosing the songs and thinking about how they fit together?
So will more connection between a station and the music it plays help the ratings? I don't know. But is it one of the few real advantages that radio has? Indeed. Pandora links the songs together through a computer. Radio has, or it least it once had, real people guiding its listeners through the music. Being "passionate about the music" has to be good for radio, whether it will make an individual station's ratings better or not.
Reader Comments
Your 2¢, in chronological order — add your comment below.
As my mentor, researcher George A. Burns, taught many years ago: Most listeners want their favorite stations to have live people on the air - they just don't want them to say anything!
Ya know, Tom - this is still the only entertainment business that allows no time for "rehearsing", proper planning-and as you stated-decent promotion. The role of the jock is to provide the glue between the songs and spots. To offer something the listener won't get otherwise. The stations that dumped jocks altogether did what a lot of us have been guilty of in the past-following the research to the letter. Nothing against research-it's a necessary tool. But if the "manager" of that information can't translate that into something SPECIAL-then it's time to get a new manager. Alan points out something that needs to be posted on the control room of every radio station in the world. If the station is talking about things that the audience doesn't care about--it's wallpaper. If the station has no passion, it's wallpaper. Whether it's relating to the music, the community or the stations' promotions -it's GOT to matter to the listener. Otherwise -shaddup.
By the way, why IS it that with all the research we've done over the years, we don't have the answer to that question... "will more connection between a station and the music it plays help the ratings"? It's not a slam at research. We've seen people in panels with the twisty dials - and when the jock comes on...the interest usually goes DOWN--unless it's something interesting...then it goes UP. Didn't someone have the foresight to document and analyze these exercises?
More than 40 years ago, Paul Drew was telling his jocks, "Sell the music, and the music will sell you." If Alan's study has any validity, it becomes a case of "what's old has become new again."
I think Mark Ramsey's dismissal of Alan Burns' insightful conclusions is all too indicative of what is wrong with radio these days. People turn on the radio for two primary reasons: companionship and because they like the programming. And since music is the most popular programming draw, then why would Mark object to anything which ENHANCES that experience?
Imagine running an all sports station which carries play-by-play but never identifies the teams or players -- or allows any analysis or sports conversation. Wow. That's really serving the fans.
Early in my radio career, I learned that listeners are attracted to their favorite music because it paints portraits in sound of the feelings in their hearts. And when one cares about something -- as fans do about the songs and stars which speak for them -- they want to know more about them. Knowing something of the story behind the hits only deepens the emotional connection and makes the music all that much more special. People remember which station enhanced their listening experience in that way and thus become fervent fans who do not tune away.
One has to get away from the idea that music is simply audio wallpaper filler between spot breaks. It's a key reason why people looking for broadcast companionship choose one station over another. But when there are multiple stations in town playing essentially the same music, the way you make YOUR presentation more appealing is by making it as listener friendly and fascinating as possible. Including relevant fun facts about the music and the people who made it demonstrates that YOUR station is more in tune with the fans than the faceless, robotic, emotionally distant competition across the street.
Once upon a time, radio in general seemed far more vital than it does today. It formed the daily pulsebeat of our lives and we listened AVIDLY wherever we went -- be it in the car, at the beach or even in bed (with our trusty transistor under the pillow). Remember what it was like, after cruising around town in the car, to pull into your driveway and turn the ignition off? Almost immediately you felt a compulsion to click the RADIO back on -- because you were afraid that if you didn't, YOU'D MISS SOMETHING. Remember that? That's how in touch with the public radio was. In contrast, contemporary listeners know that they can tune out of today's all-too-predictable straitjacketed programming for an hour, a week, a month or a year AND NOT MISS A THING. I mean, really. Who wants to listen to the same repetitious rerun of unshowcased soundalike selections interrupted now and then by the same tired station self-promotion? Sure, a few times an hour you get to hear some faceless, detached-sounding DJ parroting one mindless station liner or another, but what’s the point? If the stuff surrounding the music does not enhance the listening experience, one might as well just stick with their iPod.
What radio needs on the air are fewer time, temperature and liner-reading drones and more compelling, captivating, insightful and knowledgeable personality DJs who become vicarious friends and companions one can relate to and feel a genuine connection with. Note that I am not advocating blathering DJs enchanted by their own voices who simply rattle on about nothing. I have always felt that if you have nothing to say, the least you can do is shut up. Instead what I am advocating is the employment of air personnel who are in touch with their listener's needs and desires and inherently knows how to succinctly enhance the listening experience.
Your comment took me back to when I was young and first really enjoyed FM radio. The DJs connected the music to our lives. And that was special. How appropriate to read this comment on the 40th anniversary of Woodstock! By the way... my oldies/classic hits station is featuring a Woodstock Artist Weekend this weekend. I'll betcha it's gonna make some of our listeners smile. I know I'm planning on tuning in... as a fan!
I've been reading a couple of the articles that have recently been written about the 40th anniversary of the Woodstock 'event.' One of the recurring factors about the festival, is that almost every one of the attendees of the festival, learned about the 'happening' on the radio. They found out about Woodstock from the burgeoning 'underground' FM radio stations, whom before this were 'also-rans' of beautiful music. Station owners blew off the band as 'experimental and non-revenue. But a bunch of 'kids' got their hands on the FM signals and created an new era for radio (and helped spawn a new cultural era as well).... is any of this sounding familiar?
the 'underground' FM's created a community and were in many cities, the linchpin of the youth movement(s). the dj's had personality, style, connection, rebellion and you 'hired' the personalities not only for their on-air ability, you also hired them for their ability to pick and mix music. it's no wonder that many still believe (or wish to believe) the 'little white lie' that jocks still pick their music and have some insight and passion into the stations programming. good god, how did we get here....!!
one of my mentors (and former boss), walter sabo, used to half joke that if someone wanted to have a wildly successful radio station today, hand it over to a bunch of kids, let them program the music, talk about stuff that 'adults' don't get and go nuts! hey, it's not brain surgery.
much of this is happening now. unfortunately, not on our estate. someone, with the pockets and brains better get their act together in this biz while the big stick still matters.
Gary, John and Walter all hit on what's missing in
today's music radio. With the possible exception of the morning show, there are no more "shows" the
rest of the day. Listeners can't care about "voices" that sound pretty much the same on
every station on the dial. Listeners can only care about, and become loyal to "people" who they
know something about.
The the two most successful radio personalities today are Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern. The one thing they have in common is that they share a lot of personal information about themselves. In Howard's case, perhaps more than we want to know.
Nevertheless, until we encourage all of our daypart DJs to become living, breathing "people'
instead of just "voices" our listeners will continue to not care if the entire air staff is replaced every week. Where are the Larry Lujacks, Cousin Brucies and Dan Ingrams of today?
Most radio today is missing that "x" factor - that feeling you get when the person on air is engaged and truly thrilled to be on air playing great music with stories and personal memories to go along with it.
I have been listening to Drake's "The History of Rock & Roll" on my iPod - if more jocks could tell stories like in that piece (and do it over the intro or as the song fades into the stopset), then maybe listeners would be more passionate about listening to us aside from "most music & less talk."
I know Tom has mentioned public radio in some of his past commentaries, and I find these forums enlightening. Many public radio stations still use DJs that pick their own music for their respective programs, and guess what, they enjoy the music, too. I host a weekly blues music program, and the listeners enjoy my studio interviews with artists that feature some talk on the music and the music itself.
Commercial radio, for the most part, doesn't feature interviews with local musicians that write their own music. They also do not have DJs that know the music that well from what I can tell from listening to their banter.
My own experience is simple, I pick the music, I make the interview requests, I feature local, regional, and national touring acts on my program, and inform the listeners about their favorite artists. Its all about the music, and commercial radio, generally speaking, forgot about that a long time ago. Unfortunately, commercial radio is quite sterile these days with their extremely tight playlists and celebrity news. The big companies don't even take chances with evening programming anymore. What a shame.
Thanks,
Greg
Two years ago I was commissioned by a Regional Group PD to write 3 different pieces of information (about a 2-3 line par) on 1000 songs or artists from a master gold list. Those info bits were then distributed to their 80 stations throughout Australia for use by the jocks.
The reason for this epic brief (which took 3 months to research and write) was to inform the jocks about the music they played...which in most cases were hits before they were born! So when they played "Satisfaction" by the Stones they were able to impart the relevant info to their listeners with authority and conviction.
The three info bits were put into rotation on the playlist... so there was something new each time "Satisfaction" (the living example) came up on the gold playlist.
It worked..I was paid, the jocks sounded like they knew what they were talking about and the listeners got some info on the gold!
I then tried to sell the concept to a capital city Australia wide network who said they "couldn't afford it" and it was "the jocks responsibility anyway!".
Yeah sure!