1/13/1995
Charts…charts everywhere a chart, paginating poorly and breaking many hearts. As long as my record moves up, I’ll read the charts.
Everybody sing!
Of course, this Editorial had to be about charts. More specifically, R&R’s charts. Excuse me. R&R’s new and improved charts. In other words, they’ve changed. Again.
It is hard for us not to say, “We told you so.†Too hard, in fact. “We told you so.†Two years ago. It was over two years ago, in fact, when Network 40 began publishing the industry’s first chart based solely on Plays Per Week. R&R laughed.
It wasn’t too long afterwards that the radio and record industries began using the Network 40 PPW chart and BDS as the standard by which record activity was judged.
In several Editorials, Network 40 “suggested strongly†that R&R drop its archaic ways of tabulating the chart and join the industry in publishing charts based solely on Plays Per Week. We even offered R&R the use of PPW without a fee so our entire industry could be standard.
R&R refused. For a while. But when the industry began to move away from R&R’s charts, surprise…R&R began the first of many changes.
R&R graciously took the term “Plays Per Week†without any acknowledgement to Network 40 or a simple, “Thank you.†(We weren’t surprised.) And R&R designed some new charts.
Unfortunately, R&R didn’t design them correctly. So screwed up were the original charts that R&R was forced to change them again and again.
Finally, last week, R&R threw in the towel. They dropped their unreliable weighting system and the even more ridiculous “add factor†and began publishing a chart made up of unweighted Plays Per Week without any add factors or other bogus paraphernalia.
In other words, R&R finally began publishing a chart just like the one Network 40 has been publishing for over two years.
We only have one question to ask. “What took you so long?†After countless Network 40 Editorials, thousands of complaints, several sacrificial lambs and a couple of ownership changes, R&R had another change to get it right. But God bless their pointy little heads, even in a feeble attempt to do too little, too late, R&R still managed to screw up. Twice.
First, R&R admitted that all their charts were inaccurate because of the methodology, weighting, add factors and other bullshit. R&R changed them all. Except the Country chart.
Excuse me? If all the charts are inaccurate because of the methodology, should all the charts be changed? Why is Country unchanged and inaccurate? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, isn’t it a duck? But R&R didn’t stop there. Instead of including all Top 40 reporters in the “new†chart, those still left in power (if only for a short time) decided to arbitrarily take some stations out of the chart because of their musical stance. In a blatant rip-off of the Monitor, R&R is printing a Pop/CHR chart and a Rhythmic/CHR chart.
Network 40 has no problem with R&R printing two charts. We print several. It’s often important to plot a particular record’s progress by format in different PPW charts. However, our main PPW chart includes all of our reporters.
Why? Simple. Since our inception, Network 40 has been consistent in our belief that a publication should not dictate to the industry it reflects. It is not our job to define a radio station’s format. Nor is it our right. Those who choose to do so are wrong. R&R is wrong.
In their haste to be different, R&R, with another change to get it right, missed again. R&R arbitrarily decided certain stations are Rhythmic (and should be in a different chart) and other are Pop and should remain in the “main†chart.
Who decides what stations go where? It certainly isn’t the stations that make those decisions. We could blame Tony Novia and Kevin McCable, but they’ll both be back in radio soon, so we’ll skip right to the top. It’s a cinch that Erica Farber won’t be returning to radio. In order to successfully return to radio, you have to have been successful in radio. Since Bob Wilson has taken the poison pill, Erica is in charge. Doesn’t everyone feel more secure knowing she’s calling the shots? Her success in radio was marginal. Her knowledge and passion for records is questionable. Maybe R&R should change its name to RA…Radio Advertising. That’s something Erica was good at.
How can R&R arbitrarily leave certain stations as Pop/CHR and throw others out because of the way they lean musically? If stations like Power 106, KMEL and WPGC don’t belong, shouldn’t stations like Z100, WLUM and WEDJ be thrown into another split> Erica? Erica?
Instead of a magazine trying to dictate policy to radio stations, should we instead focus on those programmers who are doing good no matter how their stations lean? Can’t we look at stations like WPLJ, Hot 97 and Z100 in New York, Kiss 108 Boston and Power 106 in Los Angeles and WNNX in Atlanta as a whole; and programmers like Scott Shannon, Steve Smith, Steve Kingston, Steve Rivers, Jay Stevens, Kevin Weatherly, Stevev Perun, Rick Cummings and Brian Phillips as individuals and learn something from all of them?
The programmers and stations mentioned are highly successful with their individual brands of Top 40. Each leans a little (or a lot) toward one type of music. Then there’s Dan Kieley in Omaha successfully playing almost everything. If R&R is to be accurate, a main Top 40 chart should include them all.
The audience doesn’t define their favorite station; they just listen to it. Good music is good music…good radio is good radio. Shouldn’t radio stations be judged by their success in playing contemporary music as a whole, rather than micro-focused to fit the format of a magazine?
When will R&R learn? Now that Erica Farber is in control, the magazine should drop all charts and focus on delivering news and information to general managers. If the industry was defining R&R, that’s where we would put the publication.
Until then, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. If it rhymes with duck…it’s probably R&R’s charts!