10/20/1995Â
Can you hear the theme from Jaws getting louder in the background? Dun-dun, dun-dun, dun-dun.
VO: Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water…
Boys and girls, we aren’t safe yet. Another great white shark has been spotted lurking off the coast, waiting to pounce on our young, weak and infirm.
Does the phrase, “The King is dead, long live the King,†ring a bell?
Oh my God, Chicken Little, the sky is falling! Again!
It wasn’t so long ago when I was writing Editorials about the Darth Vader of our business, R&R. Heading the long list of detrimental deeds by the publication was R&R’s insistence on dictating to the industry they pretended to serve. Chief among the complaints were R&R’s arbitrary decisions regarding the reporting status and format designations of radio stations.
Remember those days when things were simple? We all felt comfortable in our habits. I had something to write about each week…you knew what you would be reading. Life was easy when we had only one thing to focus on.Â
Now that R&R’s power has eroded so much that the company can only use 15-watt bulbs, it would seem that peace could settle over the universe and love could rule the world. Unfortunately, this isn’t Aquarius and I am not the 5th Dimension. The Dark Side’s power is strong.
The hottest topic of conversation at The Monitor gathering this past weekend in New York centered around labels. I’m not talking about record labels, but labels that trade magazines, particularly The Monitor, are using when describing and listing certain radio stations. Many programmers and record executives were extremely vocal when discussing this proposition both inside a panel discussion and outside in the halls.
What’s it all about? Several things, really.
Do trade magazines have the right to dictate policies to stations and record companies? It’s an interesting supposition. Trade magazines depend on information gathered from radio stations to put together a credible publication. When the publication is credible, record companies support the magazine with advertising. (Some magazines have no credibility with radio, yet, for outdated reasons, they still garner some record company support, but for the sake of this Editorial, let’s leave them out of it.) Since all trade magazines depend on support from both the radio and record communities, it’s hard for a trade magazine to dictate to anyone…unless that trade assumes power it doesn’t really have.
Remember R&R?
You don’t remember R&R? Hmmm, neither does most of the industry.
The Monitor got quite a lot of industry flack at the gathering last week by suggesting a method by which all radio stations would be classified. Michael Ellis of The Monitor has decided to classify stations based solely on music.  If a station plays music that fits within certain guidelines, it will fall into a certain category. Whether or not a programmer thinks his or her station belongs in that category is immaterial.
Really?
In my opinion, it isn’t. Give Michael credit. Neither he, nor anyone else at The Monitor, dictated these guidelines as official positions. Michael has merely floated these guidelines as opinions to get feedback from the industry.
The feedback had been ear-splitting.
It is, and has been, Network 40’s position that programmers describe the format of their individual stations. Who better to make that distinction? Particularly in today’s age, where New York’s Mainstream Top 40 would be a Houston Alternative station, it is impossible to accurately describe a particular radio station unless market variables are taken into consideration.
Presentation must be taken into consideration. Presentation has always set a true Top 40 apart from the competition. Anyone who doesn’t take presentation into consideration when defining a station isn’t looking at the whole picture.
What about the programmer’s opinion? Shouldn’t it count for something? At Network 40, we believe the PD’s opinion counts more than anything else.
Steve Kingston knows more about his radio station than we do. Ditto Steve Perun. Since both operate thousands of miles apart and we can’t listen to both with equalarity (you like that word?), how either Steve classifies his station makes all the difference in the world.
Is KMEL a Top 40 station in San Francisco? Absolutely. KMEL’s list last week reflected about the same ethnic mix of music as KFRC ten years ago. And their presentation is definitely Top 40. Is WPGC a Top 40 station? In Washington, D.C., it most certainly is. Would either of these stations be Top 40s in Wichita? Who cares? Each stations is a reflection of the market it serves.
I believe Michael’s agenda in classifying stations is an honest attempt to produce what he believes is a more accurate chart. I applaud his efforts, if not his decisions. We go with what we know. Michael spent most of his time in radio as an MD. Most of the Network 40 editors are former programmers. We believe that a format is more than music.
What’s all the fuss? Why should any programmer care how a trade magazine classifies a station? Many are afraid a trade’s definition can be used by their competition when seeking advertising revenue. Others feel a certain classification might deny their station promotions from record companies.
The solution is simple.
Network 40 doesn’t put classifications on any of our reporters. We allow programmers to describe their own stations. We feel they are significantly more qualified.
So, what happens if we disagree with the description supplied by the programmer? We don’t use that station as a part of our data base.
What about radio stations? Suppose the programmer describe a station a certain way and a trade magazine insists it should fit into another category? Simple. The programmer should refuse to report to the publication and not allow the magazine to use its call letters. The power lies with the programmer.
It’s that simple.
End of story.