13 Comments

1. Geoff,
   June 26th, 2008 at 4:40 am:
   

   Hats off to the redoubtable Mr Lloyd for sticking his head above the parapet on such a contentious subject!

   The arguments that David lists as examples of what other, successful UK radio stations might put forward on music policy are perhaps sound, but certainly not watertight, and probably not very future-proof either.

   The jukebox one topples over pretty easily, just by pointing out that a jukebox is a jukebox in a pub, not a radio. They serve completely different purposes. Adam posted some stats in ‘The Golden Goose’ thread, saying that 76% of all listeners discover new music through AM/FM radio. People expect a jukebox to play jukebox hits. New, unfamiliar music is something they like and expect from their radio. (That’s not to say a jukebox format isn’t viable, many radio stations make a great success of it.)

   The iPod argument is similarly flimsy. If someone has 375 tracks on their iPod, then they’ve probably hand-picked 375 tracks that they really like. If you are programming a radio station’s core music policy, you’re filling it with tracks that come up most positively and frequently in research across a broad sample.

   If you gave someone a straight choice between 375 tracks they know that they love, and 375 tracks, some of which they love, some of which they like, some they’re indifferent to, and some of which they hate, nobody is going to pick the latter. Fortunately, it’s not a straight, like-for-like choice between a radio and an iPod. Yet…

   It’s possible that people only have an average of 375 songs in their iPod because it’s still a relatively new thing, and their interaction with this technology is still in its infancy, compared with radio. I’d guess that if you were to look at what this figure were just in a younger demographic, it’d be a lot higher than 375 songs. Young people are owning (although not necessarily paying for) a lot more music - something which was again touched on in the comments to Clive’s ‘Golden Goose’ post. Who cares about young people, though? They’re not in our target demographic. But they will be, one day, and technology first adopted by teenagers has a habit of quickly spreading across generations. We ignore da kidz at our peril.

   Radio-rivalling emerging technologies are sometimes dismissed by the establishment as niche or the preserve of the youth. Services such as last.fm or Pandora are seen as the clever and complicated playthings of geeks, far removed from the mainstream. They’ll never catch on. Or will they? Media seems to be heading the way of the bespoke. Sky+ lets us watch only the TV we want, the BBC homepage or iGoogle feed us the news, weather, alerts of our choosing, Facebook organises and connects our social lives. There’s a massive shift in the direction of personalised information and entertainment. Is it not folly for us to look the other way and console ourselves with smug statistics about people only filling their iPods with 375 songs?

   The line about people not getting tired of hearing their favourite song is a nonsense. Mental unwellness notwithstanding, there are only a finite amount of times someone wants to hear anything. Every time I hear George Harrison’s beautiful, bright guitar burst in after the first verse of ‘Nowhere Man’, my spirit soars and I feel all the optimism of a sun drenched morning. That said, if you were to chop that guitar solo out, make it into a loop and lock me in room with it going round and round and round, I’m pretty sure I would stab through my own eardrums before sundown. The reason no one complains about hearing their favourite song too often is that if they hear it too often, it stops being their favourite song. (Which is OK - we’ve all had heady, but short-lived love affairs with great pop songs. )

   Distorted perceptions of repetition? Probably some truth in that one, but it also smacks of radio programmers hearing feedback they don’t like and patronisingly writing off as “Tsk! Those simple, ordinary people listening, with their easily confused brains!”, rather than trying to address it.

   Similarly, I’m sure there are listeners who recall songs less well than we do (again a condescending view of “them” and “us”, though) and I’m sure anyone who’s ever answered a studio switchboard can tell an hilarious tale of punters-say-the-dumbest-things like the ‘Hey Jude’ one, but it’s completely unfair to assume that they represent the majority.

   There’s a horrible piece of received wisdom along the lines of ‘nobody ever went bust underestimating the general public’. I’ve heard this and variations on it dozens of times throughout my career. Shame on anyone who claims to have any pride in their work and then trots out this nasty idiom. Where is your integrity if you are treating your consumers with such disdain? Sure, a lot of people have made a lot of money doing exactly that, but isn’t it far, far better to throw all your talent and energy into doing exactly the opposite: Giving people something that exceeds their expectations? Striving to make something truly great rather than something bland enough for people to swallow down without really noticing? Wouldn’t you rather be Radiohead than Westlife, or ‘The Simpsons’ rather than ‘2 Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps’?

   Moving on through the list: For just about every positive comment on ‘loving the music variety’, stations get someone bemoaning the relentless repetition. And finally, we can all point at once successful, tightly-formatted radio stations which follow the high-rotation, research driven formula whose figures are now in decline.

   It’s interesting that the quote David opens with is from an American radio boss. I’ve never really understood the UK commercial radio industry’s fascination with trying to ape the U.S., or for that matter, Australia. Both have undoubtedly, produced many, many excellent examples of radio broadcasting. However, in the UK the public’s relationship with, and expectations of radio are completely different because of the omnipresence and heritage of a quality, listener focused, well resourced state broadcaster.

   The benchmark for radio in this country has always been set by the fact that listeners are used to programmes being produced for them; with their enjoyment in mind, by the BBC. In a less-regulated, free market commercial radio environment, listeners are there to be mined for, collected and offered up to advertisers.

   Let’s not kid ourselves, that’s what we’re doing in UK commercial radio, too, but whereas in, say, the States it’s all about investing as little as possible into programming for the maximum possible return (ie. you just need to be one notch less rubbish than your closest competitor), the high quality and production values of the BBC’s radio services have raised the game.

   Which brings us on to the Radio Two view, which I’d love to get my teeth into, but I’ve ranted on for far too long, and it’s about time somebody else had a go.

   I think it’s absolutely brilliant that David’s thrown this one out to us wolves, and look forward to being part of the conversation as it unfolds. It’s a sad but common state of affairs in commercial radio when it’s actually a handicap for a DJ to be passionate about music. Is there a future in a music policy where this passion can be harnessed instead of frowned upon and robotically dismissed with reams of “computer says no” research?

   
   link to this comment |
2. Bingethink,
   June 26th, 2008 at 10:41 am:
   

   I think there is one major element missing from David’s post - the particular individual brand identity of Virgin Radio and how it plays against the music repetition policy.

   Magic FM works and plays a very tight playlist of extremely familiar songs. But then the Magic brand is all about warmth and familiarity and security - deep brown voices and songs you’ve heard a million times before. Predictability - “don’t frighten the horses” - is what Magic is all about.

   The reason I think that there appears to be more complaint about Virgin’s music repetition rather than Magic’s or Heart’s, is because somewhere within that Virgin brand, there is still the idea of being “maverick” and of being allied to roots in “music culture.” Virgin is supposed to be a bit rock and roll, isn’t it?? The Virgin brand makes play of those associations, but the station doesn’t appear to have a very broad taste in music - so something doesn’t ring true. It would be like getting a lift every day in a mate’s car who never stops banging on about what a big music fan he is, but who only has 3 CDs that he plays on constant rotation. He comes across as a fraud.

   (This also comes across when you contrast your presenters to the music they play. You have presenters like Geoff and Christian O’Connell, who are clearly at the station because they are fresh and sharp and unpredictable - we don’t know what they are going to say next - but the music played around them doesn’t match - it’s wholly predictable.)

   When David talks about “a fresh chance to stand for something” he hits the nail on the head. A new brand gives you a chance to redefine yourselves and your music policy, and get them to match.

   I guess that means that you could choose a brand identity which shouts “safe”, “predictable”, “unadventurous”, but the language you are using so far - even the nature of this blog - suggests a business that is moving in a different direction to that. And I also guess that the demographic you are after don’t consider themselves safe, predictable or unadventurous either…

   So, as you build a post-iPod radio station, I think you should be drawing from that technology at least a little. The key component of the iPod is the “shuffle” - not knowing what comes next. Downloading individual tracks, not ploughing through the album. Taking your musical entertainment from various sources, not being tied to one source, or genre, or mood. More Music Variety, then. Except you should mean it.

   
   link to this comment |
3. Marty from new yawk,
   June 26th, 2008 at 3:22 pm:
   

   Music repetition- As Adam suggested my listening to VR as well as Virgin Radio Classic Rock is somewhat (maybe considerably) more than the average listener. With that in mind, while I would prefer more variety, I am reconciled to the repetition. However, the repetition becomes annoying when it’s a track which I find particularly grating.

   Fortunately, I am able to email the presenter and make my feelings known. I don’t email David Lloyd (nor did I email Paul Jackson) about this sort of thing as I believe there are plenty of other lunatics emailing the boss in my stead.

   For example, at the moment Kid Rock’s track is disturbing me because I don’t perceive it as an original work. On the other hand, if his royalties are going to a charitable institution, I would upgrade the track to tolerable status.

   Absent that, there is nothing grating in the play list at the moment imho. Although if you tell me there’s a new James Blunt track on the way, I will ready myself.

   
   link to this comment |
4. Willie Morgan,
   July 1st, 2008 at 1:22 pm:
   

   “I HAVEN’T HEARD IT FOR AGES” - well, it made me smirk on Sunday:

   As a regular freelancer at Golden Square, I sometimes feel like a piece of the furniture, and yet sometimes as a bit of an outsider. You see, for those who do not know (and probably couldn’t care less) I spent over 15 years in the music biz, as a plugger, before embarking on a radio career some years ago (before VR launched), and have some experience as a music programmer (not to mention, as a producer and presenter, so I won’t!).

   Anyway, on 19th May, I read an article in The Guardian by Martin Kelner entitled “Heard the same song three times today? Blame the craze for ‘testing’ tunes”. He opened his piece with: “How many times in your life is it possible to listen to Sweet Talkin’ Woman by ELO without wishing to immerse your head in a bowl of warm couscous, screaming, “Death, where is thy sting?”? I only ask because I heard the song three times yesterday on three different radio stations.

   Don’t get me wrong, it is a perfectly decent pop song - I have played it on the radio myself probably hundreds of times - but why the sudden ubiquity of a 30-year-old track? Is ELO on the road again, has Jeff Lynne died, does the tune appear on the soundtrack of the latest Judd Apatow romp? ” (see the rest at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/may/19/radio.bbc1).

   Now, firstly, I’m not against music testing, and indeed, I spent quite a few hours, recently, producing 450 snippets of songs for Adrian Fitch to use in a recent music testing session. I seem to recall that ELO’s “Sweet Talkin’ Woman” was amongst them. Testing is a useful tool for a programmer, and should be utilised in equal measure with ‘instict’ and ‘experience’, which I’m sure happens at Golden Sq.

   So you could have knocked me down with a feather, when on Sunday afternoon, I heard Leona do the big sell on I Haven’t Heard It For Ages, for a punter who had requested … yes, you’ve guessed it! - “Sweet Talkin’ Woman”. I’ve no idea whether said punter actually heard it and called in within the stipulated 15 mins to claim his super prize. If not, one must assume that he had his head in that bowl of warm couscous!!!

   Conclusion? None really. A bit like the person who wanted “Hey Jude”. Back in the day, we used to joke and say things like “Never over-estimate the intelligence of your listener.” Of course, we never really meant it (or did we?), but things have moved on, and with the impending changes, there is a wonderful opportunity for this radio station; like others have written before me, we ignore our customers at our peril.

   POST-SCRIPT: Back in 1978, I worked as a plugger for Jet Records (owned by Don Arden, the father of Sharon Osbourne). One of the releases I helped make a hit by getting loads of airplay was… yes, you’re ahead of me …”Sweet Talkin’ Woman” by ELO !!! In fact, I still have a few highly-collectable copies in mauve-coloured 7″ vinyl in picture sleeve. If you want one … just ask!

   
   link to this comment |
5. Paul Easton,
   July 1st, 2008 at 5:22 pm:
   

   “Testing is a useful tool for a programmer, and should be utilised in equal measure with ‘instinct’ and ‘experience’…”

   Spot on, Willie, I couldn’t agree more.

   Research should be just one of several tools used by a station’s programmer to determine what to play and, equally important, what to leave off the playlist. A good programmer works on a mixture of ‘gut’, an understanding of the station’s target audience and careful use of research data; as well as having the ‘ears’ to spot a potential hit that is going to be both radio-friendly (and right for the station) as well as being a good ‘punter record’.

   If you allow yourself to be research-led at every step of the way, you’re simply asking for trouble.

   Although it is fashionable dogma to say that small playlists work better than large playlists; and to talk about songs “not testing very well” or “burn” factors, the truth is that there is a great deal of mythology and kidology from the research and consultancy industry about music testing.

   Some years ago one regional licence applicant (of which I was on the board) pointed out in their application that many of the songs not played on radio have never been tested. Some of the songs not played have been rejected by testing to pitifully small samples, while many songs not played have been rejected on test results skewed by the reaction of elements of the sample who were outside the target age group of the radio station!

   Good researchers know how easy it is to pose the right question badly, or to simply ask the wrong question in the first place. They also know that you can ask the right questions and someone with no research background can then put their own spin on the results. Give the same research analysis to two different programmers and they could end up programming two different radio stations based on the same background data.

   We have more than 50 years of great pop/rock musical heritage to be tapped, yet too much of it is simply being ignored. Admittedly many former hits have not stood the test of time for one reason or another but there are many more that still sound good today. So why are they not being played?

   How many of the songs not being played on the radio have actually been tested in the first place? I have even met some programmers who choose oldies either because of a song’s original chart position or because they happen to be the ones they already know, while anything else just doesn’t get on the list for testing.

   Music research can be a very valuable tool in the right hands, but a disaster when used by someone who doesn’t really seem to understand what they’re doing.

   Obviously I’m not for one moment suggesting that commercial radio should swing the other way and start swamping their programming with obscure album tracks and turntable hits; that would be counter-productive. It would be nice, though, not to keep hearing the same few songs all the time as we seem to get at the moment from commercial radio and get some true ‘music variety’.

   
   link to this comment |
6. Paul Easton,
   July 1st, 2008 at 5:23 pm:
   

   PS. I still have one of those purple-vinyl/picture sleeve copies of ‘Sweet Talking Woman’.

   
   link to this comment |
7. LP,
   July 2nd, 2008 at 9:21 am:
   

   Paul, your line “A good programmer works on a mixture of ‘gut’, an understanding of the station’s target audience and careful use of research data” should probably be pinned to the office wall of every commercial radio programmer across the land.

   Too often when posing the question “why are we still playing XXXX” to PDs and Heads of Music over the years, the response I’ve got has been “because it’s still testing SO well”. Over the past decade, I don’t think I’ve ever got a “because my gut is still telling me we should still be playing it” or “because it still has great appeal to our target audience”.

   Something to consider, UK commercial radio Programme Directors and Heads of Music.

   You know who you are!

   PS. I don’t have one of those purple-vinyl/picture sleeve copies of ‘Sweet Talking Woman’.

   
   link to this comment |
8. Alysia,
   July 3rd, 2008 at 9:30 am:
   

   I wonder if the fact that the subject of Music Repetition, in it’s many forms on this blog, has generated such a huge response from both those who know about radio and those who simply listen to it a lot, all of whom seem to think a bit more variety wouldn’t go a miss, simply screams ‘Now we’ve got the chance… Let’s do something about it!’

   Sadly the view that we only play 10 cds on repeat, however just or unjust it is, is the view that a hell of a lot of people have of us. There are so many good songs out there, ones that we have played in the past, have A-listed in fact, that simply slip off the playlist and now sit redundant on the cart wall never to be played again, deemed to risky even for ‘Haven’t Heard It For Ages’. People don’t like them less just because they haven’t heard them for a while, in fact, when we hear a track in the office that hasn’t been played for a while you will hear the mexican wave style murmur of ‘Tune’ ripple across the floor. Or most commonly ‘Are we really playing Nirvana?’ I wonder if you hear that in peoples homes and cars as well?

   For what it’s worth, I’m not a Programmer, and this is just my humble opinion, but it seems to me that this new ‘era’ is the perfect chance to look at peoples perceptions of us and change it if necessary, update it perhaps, but most importantly simply look at what we do and make it better. If that’s spice the playlist up a bit, then you certainly won’t hear me complain.

   
   link to this comment |
9. Joel,
   July 9th, 2008 at 3:16 pm:
   

   So obviously every radio station needs to employ a consultant from either New Zealand or Australia (now remember they really really have a high quality product over there….er not !!)

   I remember a consultant explaining to me in 1996 why they play their music on plus 2. It is very obvious to most people and there is nothing better than hearing a classic power ballad from the 80s sung by The Smurfs….

   Then they come up with this…..Not only speed up my favourite songs but then edit them to 2 minutes in length.

   WHY ??? - So we have the feel that we play more music. Remember in OZ listeners must count the number of tracks each station plays every hour (and people pay these guys for this advice)

   My counter argument was…If Shania Twain, Man I feel like a woman is the top testing track right now should we not be playing in full instead of hacking it to bits ??

   And the only reason I bring this up is because I went to a Karaoke night at Key 103 and we had been playing Nickelback “How you remind me” every hour for a year. I went up to sing it in front of rammed room and had no idea the 2nd chorus actualy existed as we had hacked it to bits.

   
   link to this comment |
10. Dan Benedictus,
    July 10th, 2008 at 1:25 pm:
    

    Good point. I always think it’s strange how reluctant people are to play songs over a certain length, as if listeners only have an attention span of three mins or so. Granted, some of them probably have less, but judging by the amount of excited calls etc we get when we DO play something longer like stairway to heavan, this is not the case.

    Whilst 14 minute progressive rock tracks by the likes of King Crimson etc, may be stretching it a little, I do think it’s silly to think that the audience can only handle three minutes of song before they start drooling and fall asleep. Often when tracks are cut down for airplay on radio and tv, they cut it at just the point that people wait patiently, like the end solo in November Rain, (i’ve seen videos on MTV where they stop just before this part), or the epic solo in Purple Rain.

    I may well be revealing myself as a closet air guitarist, and lover of older rock, but to quote John Lennon; “I know i’m not the only one”.

    
    link to this comment |
11. Geoff,
    July 10th, 2008 at 3:16 pm:
    

    It’s easy to criticise New Zealand and Australian radio for not being terribly high quality. I used to work for the biggest market player in Auckland, and when I tune into their stations now, I lament the fact that they’re not sounding as great as they used to. But there are several reasons for this, and they have very little to do with the talent of the people working for these stations.

    The reasons include deregulation, a greedy government, and companies far more interested in profit than a quality product.

    Go back about 10 to 15 years, and New Zealand radio was an incredibly different scene. In fact it was extremely similar to here. Regulation ensured there was no direct competition, companies were making healthy profits, and we had the luxury of time to create some beautiful radio.

    Then came deregulation, the government realising they could raise huge funds from licensing station after station, and big international companies (Canwest & Clear Channel) coming in with the goal of making a lot of money. On one radio station I worked on we used to have to play half an hour of ads every hour, but still claimed we played 50 minutes of music.

    These days, most of New Zealand radio is automated & networked, there’s hardly any local anymore, there are two of every station in every market (two easy listening, two classic rock, two classic hits), and, due to downsizing, staff are strung out trying to produce content for multiple stations.

    People don’t really treat New Zealand or Australian radio experience with terribly much respect. They tend to equate it with hospital radio. But it’s very true that these consultants you criticise most definitely have to work a lot smarter than we do. They struggle with direct competition from identical stations on a daily basis. They’re constantly pressured to cut costs leading to more automation and less staff. They have to be shrewd, because they’re not just handed their audience on a plate. And they have nowhere near the amount of money we have to do things. Yet they still manage to produce radio that wins awards.

    When I arrived here about 8 years ago, I was staggered by the amount of resources that go into radio. The fact we have programme controllers, deputy programme directors, programme managers etc, where in NZ, that generally falls onto the shoulders of just one person, and they’re stretched across two or three stations. In fact, some stations don’t even have a PC. Some don’t even have presenters, with presenters from other markets feeding automated shows into their computer.

    The fact that OFCOM are looking at Auctioning Classic FM’s frequency worries me greatly, because once the government discovers how much cash they can make out of radio licenses, what’s going to stop them licensing more and more and more. Now arguably it’s great for the listener to have a choice, but when that choice comes at the expense of quality, is it really that great for the listener?

    I love the industry here, because it’s exactly what it used to be like back home, and it was the golden age of New Zealand radio I’m glad I got to experience. We have it good, but don’t get me wrong, we can definitely afford to become a bit more slicker and smarter. However if radio here becomes as focused on profits, redundancies and downsizing as it has become back home, then we’re likely to be forced into producing the same lower quality product that Joel came to criticize.

    
    link to this comment |
12. Psymnancency,
    August 3rd, 2008 at 3:42 am:
    

    Thank you

    
    link to this comment |
13. Moummaflous,
    December 9th, 2008 at 7:58 pm:
    

    Hi!
    My name is Jessika!

    
    link to this comment |

Post a comment