So, Seriously. Is Going To Do Anything About it?

Probably not.

Only the very courageous among us will want to take the risk of doing things differently in exchange for a potential payoff.  Old habits die hard.  BUT:  here's the payoff.

If we cut repetition complaints in half satisfaction could go even a few percentage points higher, driving better perceived TSL (diary measurement) and actual usage (PPM).

• The trade charts won’t do it.  The chart editors have been concerned about overnight and other “daypart” spins for many years and have certainly talked about ways to remove them from their charts, but there hasn’t been a subscription-supported trade magazine since the deaths of Bill and Janet Gavin.  Ads paid for by the very folks who also pay for the promotional tactics support them.
• Could they create two different charts, one for the higher level of spins that PPM appears to require and the other for diary markets where it's still possible to sustain 14 hours a week average TSL?  I wonder if PPM stations mixed in one monitored chart with diary markets hurts diary market stations that are drawn to increase their spins to dangerous levels given their longer TSL.  Most likely, even the stations wouldn't support this idea.  No one wants to be in the "smaller markets" group.
• Labels and publishers won’t do it. They all support the idea in principle, since it would save them promo expenditures which really don’t do very much to drive sales or familiarity, but they all fear that they’d be the only one to stop and would get beaten by competitors that continue.  This will be true as long as AM/FM radio spins are the #1 driver of music sales and, thank goodness for today’s radio, there appears to be no foreseeable end to that.
• Consolidated radio owners won’t do it.  Their debt drives everything they do and suggesting that giving up a few thousand dollars of their top line in order to fund marketing being paid for now for them by labels and indie promoters could get an exec fired.
• Your competition won’t do it.  They also fear that you’ll get the money they’d leave on the table if they did.
• Going back to “reporting” from a larger panel in place of monitored spins won’t do it.  Before monitored airplay, folks reported songs they didn’t actually play.

YOU will do it only when you’re convinced that carefully testing every recurrent spin to be sure it’s adding value for listeners.

YOU will do it only when you come up with better win/win ways to give value to your partners in the music business than burying songs you really know in your heart will never see the light of day on your playlist.  Commit to the songs and artists you believe in and give them meaningful spins when the majority of your audience is listening so that they you can build familiarity and solid test scores in fewer weeks.

YOU will do it when you see ratings growth by doing what listeners love and that is what I am confident will happen.

YOU will do it precisely because all of the others won't, and that's going to gain "someone" a power advantage.

After all, of the 8,874 folks who participated in A&O&B’s Roadmap 2014 listener survey the majority are very satisfied with the country radio they hear right now.  And, that number is trending up.  Of that total 1,336 say they are dissatisfied as a result of too much repetition.  15% of the total sample.

My proposition:  when your satisfaction levels and cume audience are at all time highs (more than double the level of any other negatives!) there is only one direction to go - down - unless you respond to the folks who aren’t happy in ways that don’t hurt you with current fans.

I think stations which take cutting "core dissatisfied" folks' repetition perception levels in half could see a 5-7% increase in usage.

ITunes? MyTunes? WhoseTunes?

It was fascinating this morning to note who got credit for topping the week's country music charts.

• Country Aircheck gave credit to the promotion team working for Hunter Hayes' “Somebody’s Heartbreak," Chris Stacey, Kevin Herring, Kristen Williams and the rest of Atlantic/WMN team.
• Billboard's kudos went to the artist, as Hayes achieved his second—and fastest—No. 1 with “Somebody’s Heartbreak.

As much as I admire Hunter artistically on this day when Clear Channel radio stations are flogging The Band Perry and Cumulus is playing twice as much Kix Brooks as any other radio group thanks to lots of extra overnight spins you simply can't disregard the role of shadowy influence in what is being passed off as factual information today.

Research funded for radio by the music business (Zac Brown's "Colder Weather" was #1 in one out yesterday and Lee Brice "I Drive Your Truck" was #1 in a different one just the other day), download charts (Darius Rucker's "Wagon Wheel" was #1, up 23% from last week). MScore, AirplayIntel, streaming and album sales  charts are topped by different ones.

As with baseball, country radio has no shortage of stats with which to make music decisions and, like the national pastime, just because someone counts it doesn't mean it really counts.

Look at iTunes data rather like we used to view record sales back in the day when all of us used to call local record shops to check on sales figures.  It's certainly an indication of passion for something when a person is willing to plunk down their hard-earned money to buy something.

That seems more credible than playing a song that helps Clear Channel get another act for their IHeartRadio Music Festival or a monitored major market station get an artist for their NTR events. 

The challenge with any kind of retail data is knowing WHO bought it.

The #1 use of radio research is to TARGET what we play, to be sure we know that it appeals to the perfect mix of our core and lighter user prospects who might listen more to our station if we did more they liked.  And, of course, it's a mistake to reach too much in either direction.  Too much core focus, too much cume focus, too much male-appeal, female appeal, younger vs older, etc .. and we hurt ourselves.  No national chart can do that for you.

If you can't afford traditional callout and your local PPM music usage data, online testing at the very least is so crucial.  It's low in cost compared to traditional callout or auditorium testing and when you do it locally it provides a great snapshot of how our most loyal users feel about what we play and that feedback comes back in just a week or two so that we can look at every narrow demo we target, heavy users, light users, etc.   

It's the only data you absolutely know about the methodology behind it to be sure that it will affect your cume and usage.

A new source of "buzz" is YouTube and the fast-growing streaming audio portals.  In some ways, like with retail reports, they are also quite variable and manipulable -- how much did the track sell for, for example.  Is it fair to compare a $1.29 track download to a free fan club coupon offer?  This is a bit like the six track mini-LP vs full 12-14 track one's sales.  Certainly, it's more impressive if you sell 500,000 at $14.95 than it is if they cost $7.95.

SO, I do look at all of them, including Taste Of Country, The Boot and CMT views for example but sometimes - rather like Luke Bryan's spring break release, Kacey Musgraves album tracks or Old Crow Medicine show in the wake of Darius Rucker's success - you really have to listen and decide if it meets your needs and will draw your core closer or push them away. 
 
The top 30 on iTunes ranges from 75,000 sales in all of North America down to 25,000 fewer than that from #1 down to #2, and half that many by the time to get down to #10 and again half THAT many when you get down to #20, etc.  When you look at your LOCAL downloads, Soundscan or Hits, Street Pulse, Big Champagne streaming trends the numbers are very small for any one market.

Take it all with a grain of salt, but employ it to see if something very interesting is happening that you really like and believe might fit.  

Ultimately, adding anything new is a risk, so in spite of all the promotional tracker pressure to push you to go faster, go only as fast as your gut tells you your audience is ready for.  Then, test those things yourself with your audience as soon as you feel like 75-85% of your two hour a day listeners are familiar with it .. and learn from that, making your judgments better and better as you get to know "your" peeps better and better by age, gender and usage profile.

That should be the only #1 that really matters to you if your goal is to make sure your radio station will be a #1 too.

A Tale Of Two Non-Hits

It boggles my mind to think how much this guy's backers have spent on airplane tickets, as he has conducted his "Hometown Radio Handshake Tour" in recent months.

What did he get for all that effort and money?

The song is not listed anywhere on either the Billboard Country Hot 60 or Country Aircheck chart this morning.  In fact, during the last seven days, one station played his song 11 times, two played it 8-9 times and six spun it 1 or 2 times.

What to make of that?

It takes more than money and lots of face-to-face contact with local programmers to get yourself a hit.

Frankly, that restores my faith a bit in what we do and how it all works.

Then, there's Callout America's #5 testing song today, Phil Vassar's "Don't Miss Your Life."

This one has to be very perplexing to Vassar and his promotion team, since it moves down from 34 to 35 on the Country Aircheck chart with no bullet and is nowhere to be seen now on Billboard's Hot 60, having moved backward sufficient weeks to be dropped.

Meanwhile, one-third of the monitored panels seems to be ignoring the chart malaise and playing it very heavily.  Four stations played it more than 35 times in the last week.  18 spun it 20 times or more in the last seven days and 19 more still have it in a ten+ spin category.

Obviously, in spite of the national inactivity, it has been working for at least a few stations.

Hats off to these smart programmers who went with their local listener reaction to what has proven to be a good national tester.

It's sad to see so many chart reporters going with the herd, feeding back to the charts what the charts are telling them are the hits.

Small wonder new things things move so slowly in the country format right now.

Three? Two? One? Zero?

As it has become increasingly obvious that Clear Channel and Cumulus have both been rolling out standardized, duplicate playlists across an increasing number of their very largest market stations, I've been speculating where that leaves the trade charts today, hoping that it will open opportunity for all of those highly successful stations to somehow still be represented - as networks, perhaps - while also opening up the chance for additional stations to be monitored and report as well.

In response to that, yesterday, Scott Fuller added this comment...

I'm sure you may disagree Jaye, but I personally feel that the gradual dismantling of the 'chart system' would be the best thing to happen to country radio moving forward.

Of course, I use charts to verify music decisions I make.

But ask the question: 'what if they weren't there tomorrow?' We still have a log to schedule, full of what the audience wants to hear and separates us from the other guys.

It might force we radio programmers to do something that's deeply fallen from our daily routine: caring what our own audience has to say. Sure, we'd still play the A+ from Nashville, but I'll bet we'd give a lot more spins to the B- in our own backyard over Nashville's third or fourth tier.

And just imagine the thousands of different 'types' of country radio 'mini formats' that would follow in their wake. Call letters with character once again.

I don't hate charts, and I'm not saying tomorrow, but it is starting to look like the way the business is going in general.

I certainly understand Scott's point of view and it's tempting to agree totally with it, but I still feel that the country format needs multiple trades and as many more reporters as possible.

The shrinking size of the monitored panel seems to me to be one of the factors hurting the speed that new music by unknown artists can move. This week's Billboard Country Update proves statistically that the hits still find a way to cut through and endure, a testament to the weekly efforts of Wade Jesson, Lon Helton, David Ross and their country chart teams' concerted efforts to be judicious.

The rules of the whole system, which admittedly can sometimes be exploited by knowledgeable promoters simply because they are so clear-cut, are well-known. Though no one likes to be the umpire, we think they are generally applied by in an aboveboard, even-handed manner.

Today, it is these forces that have created the need for independent consulting firms to do research, gather objective data from stations and listeners, keep at arms-length from the record promotion business and offer dependable, objective guidance on music to radio based solidly in listener reaction.

Frankly, the consulting business is GREAT right now partially because of these very actions that consolidated groups are taking in the face of incredible promotional pressure. Their competition is increasingly looking for believable help in separating the honest hits from the hype (of which there is plenty).

Country stations want and need trustworthy data more than ever, and we work hard to maintain high ethical standards in the information we provide to our clients.

A&O thinks the future of the formats and radio broadcasters we serve depends on it.

The Toughest Jobs In Music City

This time, as noted in my previous missive, of potentially smaller reporting panels for BDS and Mediabase charts as two major groups move to standardize many more monitored stations' music should be a major opportunity for a reliable and, hopefully, larger sample of more stations that could be looked on by the industry as THE chart.

I certainly don't question any chart editor's right to add and drop reporters, but at a time of great opportunity for the country format, it would be a shame if the convergence of a smaller number of major group programmers controlling an increasing number of reporting playlists, homogenizing the top of the national charts and a larger portion of new reporters coming from the ranks of "easy add" stations preferred by the promotion community made the charts less trustworthy.

Over the years, large groups have diminished the impact of "independents" on their playlists after signing consent decrees, yet admitting no wrongdoing. Payola/plugola laws remain in effect, of course, and due to human nature, require careful and constant vigilance.

Rumors out of Nashville make me worry that the major trades are wrestling with all of this, contemplating cutting their panel of reporters based on a very, very, very troubling criteria --- the songs they report (or do not report)?

A very disturbing possibility, which would harm the format, I believe: if you don't play unfamiliar new music by unproven new artists that is being pushed by certain companies who are financially supportive of the trades your reporting status may be in jeopardy!

My fear (and maybe that's all it is - groundless fear) is that if chart editors and their friends in the music business don't like your playlist decisions, they will drop you as a reporter.

This is hypocrisy, ethical bankruptcy, dishonesty and damned frightening!

It is not news that the trades are subject to powerful pressures, of course. BUT - dropping stations because they don't like the songs the station reports is in essence telling us, "If there is no one at the station who can be influenced, we don't care what they are playing."

Trades should reflect what is being played by successful, winning radio stations. Period. They should NOT dictate how those songs are selected.

In tomorrow's post, let's put ourselves into the shoes of Lon Helton, Wade Jesson and David Ross and ponder what we'd do if we were in their position right now.

Charting The Country Format's 2012 Musical Relevance

Almost everyone in the radio and records industries decries the need for trade charts as a means of determining the difference between "hit" and "STIFF."

If you have local research, you've no doubt become accustomed to finding that there are a surprising number of tunes which "lost their bullet and stiffed" that continue to TEST very well in research.

The listeners who love these songs simply don't know about trade charts. However, since it's difficult to test things that people are unfamiliar with, at some point we need to make educated guesses as to which of the many songs that come in each week will be hits. Good charts can be helpful in deciding which songs and artists have the highest consensus probability of becoming a hit nationally.

Personally, I define a "hit" as a song that gets sufficient play on a national basis to chart at least top 15 and achieves a minimum of 65% positive and less than 20% negative research scores in auditorium testing and callout. Even releases which end up at the lower end of those metrics may not make it to my recurrent or gold categories, even after fairly substantial "current" spins.

I think of that airplay as a risky investment that went badly.

When charts accurately reflect what selective, local market-oriented stations who listen to the new music are playing, most of the time, those charts indicate songs which may test well many weeks before research scores become available .

What if a trade publication picked which stations report to their chart - NOT based on accurate reporting of real airplay - BUT on which songs a station did or did not report? Would you consider that chart helpful or harmful on your station's efforts to determine what REAL hits are going to be?

With stories circulating now that Clear Channel's identical Premium Choice and Cumulus' Atlanta-recommended 13-20 approved currents playlists are being mandated at more and more major stations, it seems sensible for trade chart editors to adjust their reporting panels.

Hopefully, any changes will still reflect what has become "syndicated/network" spins of course but also open the prospect of being a reporter and monitored by many more radio stations.

Today, nine "networks" and 236 stations for Mediabase and 132 monitored by BDS have become one of the primary sources of chart information for the nearly 3,000 country stations in North America.

Though errors and glitches do occur, monitored airplay is generally acknowledged as unimpeachable in its accurate reporting of what those country radio stations in 125 markets actually play.

As A&O sees it, if you want to know what a hit WAS last week, check Billboard's chart. Review Country Aircheck each week for a good determination of which of the many current hits being promoted to most of those same radio stations THIS week are ranked highest. Watch it occur in real time, day to day on BDS and Mediabase.

Looking at both can be an excellent guide to what radio is doing in the largest U.S. and Canadian markets with music.

Since, today, most new music breaks from the largest markets DOWN to the smaller ones because all label promotion and artist visits to radio only occur in those places, one might ask: do I really need any other charts?

Music Row hopes that you do. By only selecting as its reporters stations which agree to expose more new music than the typical monitored station in a competitive situation does they hope to create a definable difference. Problem is, of course, is that many songs and artists chart in the 30's and 40's of that chart and never go anywhere else.

This time of smaller reporting panels for BDS and Mediabase charts should be a major opportunity for a reliable and larger sample of stations that could be looked on by the industry as THE chart.

In the following post, I'll ruminate more about this and remind you of some painful lessons from the past.

Making Sense Of The Senseless

I understand why record labels play both sides in major markets where all competitive stations are monitored reporters.

Makes sense. Support the station which supports your music and artists. If you don't add it, I'll try to get your competition to do so in hopes that forces you to add it.

What doesn’t make sense to me is in medium and small markets where there’s only one reporting station and as a result labels make sure they get everything and the non-reporter next to nothing.

Those stations may be on top for the required three books in a row and reporting status may change then. Or, the non-reporting programmers and music directors will be at reporting stations some day and they will remember.

Hopefully, the label executives who lobbied for the smaller number of reporters in hopes it would save money have now figured out that didn't work quite that way and some day they'll start to lobby for more stations in more markets to report too.

More reporters means fewer people with too much power and a more representative, credible chart.

Even less sensible: small markets where no one is a reporter and yet artist managers still try to enforce a standard rider in their contracts which says only reporting stations can welcome the show or appear on stage.

Often the only station in town which has partnered with the county fair or local casino for years finds that they are told the artist’s road manager wants it to be a “neutral show” with no welcoming station in spite of the fact that they are the only game in town.

Read The Riders

An attorney once told me that every single phrase in every contract has a story or experience behind it, providing the reason it's there. As you read "standard" riders of touring artists you have to wonder what happened to get the act to "demand" certain things.

Fortunately, everything is negotiable and it's generally possible to remove at least some of them from the agreements of agents and artists who you'd want to work with long term during the booking process.

For example, I sometimes recommend to non-reporting radio station clients who want to gain a solid music leadership position that they begin to promote their own shows, bringing artists into town themselves if local promoters, venues and agents have developed such a cozy relationship with each other that they attempt to block any access to existing performances by important stars.

Usually, the first time they try this they are presented with a contract containing a "standard rider" requiring the venue and the artist to work only with the local reporting or monitored radio station.

You can't blame them for trying. After all, no artist or label wants a reporter to drop a song because a competing station that isn't a reporter is bringing them to town and it's very convenient to blame the rider in the contract so that the artist, booking agent or record label can feel like they're not being "the bad guy."

If an artist won't drop a rider that offends you, don't book them.

These discussions can be quite adult and friendly when held early in the process, but can get ugly and angry when done once the contract has been signed and the show is tonight.

Caveat emptor.

Gotcha (Again)

If you are not a reporting or monitored station and you think that record labels don't care about you, you are correct.

Unless you can find a way to may them pay attention.

I used to think that helping them sell music at retail would do it, but numerous experiences over the years have convinced me that - at least when it comes to the promotion departments - that is not so. All they are compensated for, and thus only nurture with a passionate focus, is chart numbers.

A major artist comes to town and the hottest new radio station of the last several rating books gets snubbed as the "heritage" reporter receives ticket give aways, meet and greets for their listeners and pre-show interviews. If you thought that anyone in Nashville has noticed that a new country radio leader has emerged, you'd be wrong. They get nothing.

Until a trade magazine finally, at long last, rewards their achievements after several strong rating periods with reporting status. Suddenly, the new station becomes music promoters' new darling and the "old" station - which had been shutting them out - learns how being ignored feels.

Is it any wonder that monitored and reporting programmers adopt a "get it while you can/gotcha" attitude?

They have memories, and Nashville taught them - as they were coming up - that the records-radio relationship is all about taking maximum advantage to attain short-term goals.