I scratch my head when a song charts #1.
.. and almost immediately the label puts out a "live" version.
.. once upon a time a programmer told a music promoter that he was dropping a #1 song due to "burn," (probably because he didn't want to admit that he was so stupid that he thought playing a song that ranked lower than #1 made more sense than playing #1 another week or two).
So, the label came up with a "live" version in hopes that would overcome the objection to keeping the #1 song in "heavy" rotation just as they were starting to get the biggest retail action of the release's "life at radio" on the tune.
1. Why drop a song just because it hits #1 on national spin charts? Isn't this the peak of its popularity, audience reach and acceptance?
2. Why test a hook for weeks and weeks, past the unfamiliarity and the polarity to the point that positives are at their highest, and then change the version of the song you play?
3. How could a song that is finally on 100% of the monitored and reporting panels and still growing spins to the point that it's capable of hitting the highest chart number be sufficiently "burnt" that you'd want to play it less?
4. If your recurrents - which is where songs like that move - test better than your heaviest rotation currents with higher positives and low negatives, wouldn't it help your targeting, cume and time spent listening potential to play them more, not less?
5. Has there EVER been a "live" version that listeners liked better on the radio than the "original hit?"
'WILL RADIO BE PUSHED OUT OF THE CONNECTED CAR?" IS THE WRONG QUESTION FOR BROADCASTERS TO ASK - A recent A&O&B Facebook post from Jaye got quite a bit of attention. It concerned a story by the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Todd Prince speculating about w...
3 months ago