9/29/1995
Short playlists got no reason, short playlists got no reason, short playlists got no reason to be.
It’s got too many Oldies and not enough hits, it’s Recurrent heavy and it’s givin’ me fits.
Well, we don’t want no short playlists…don’t need no short playlist…don’t want no short playlists’ round heah!
Nashville, forever in love with the song, should re-release Randy Newmans’ classic with those new words. It’s familiar to everyone already.
Two things are being cut in Country music today: playlists and promoters’ wrists. And there isn’t a lot that can be done about either.
I often say that it’s not enough to define the problem, we must also offer solutions. I’m afraid I will be guilty of the former in this Editorial.
With few exceptions, Country programmers across the country are shortening their playlists. Why? There’s not one major reason. It’s a combination of a lot of little things. Over the past two weeks, I’ve talked with programmers in major and smaller markets to get their views. It seems that no matter the market size, their reasons are similar.
Of course, each believes that there is a lack of good product available. Programmers accuse record companies of producing “cookie-cutter†records by different artists who all sound alike. While a case can be made for this point, it’s not all the fault of the record companies. For the most part, programmers are not likely to add records that don’t fit the “sound†of the other records they are playing. Record companies can’t be faulted for trying to deliver what they believe radio programmers want. They are in the position of being damned if they do and damned if they don’t
Another complaint from programmers is that record companies don’t give records enough time to become hits. Records by new artists were once worked in smaller markets first, then moved into larger markets as the records proved themselves. Most records break out of larger markets now. And there are a couple of reasons for this.
In the late 1980s, as Country music made its way into the mainstream, major and large-market radio stations were dominated by consultants. Consultants, for their own needs, like to keep playlists short. It’s a safer position. Fewer currents and more recurrents make for a more familiar, if less exciting, sound. The consultant epidemic hadn’t spread to the smaller markets and those programmers were able to take more chances. Exposing new product worked in those markets and those programmers were able to take more chances. Exposing new product worked in those markets and record companies recognized that fact. Records were broken in smaller markets, then moved into the big time with a track record to back them up.
Then came the 1990s. Major and large-market Country stations began putting more responsibility on individual programmers and in-house research. Consultants moved to smaller markets and the situation reversed. Today, It’s easier, in many cases, to get new product exposed in major markets than in smaller markets because no consultant is involved.
Another culprit is SoundScan. Record companies saw research proving most records were sold in large markets. Why were they spending so much money servicing and working the smaller markets? The ends didn’t justify the means. On paper, that’s accurate. But those of us in the radio and record industries have the unique ability to reason accurately to an inaccurate conclusion.
That same research also pointed out that the largest portion of the sales market was the combination of all the smaller markets. If all the smaller markets were successfully programming a record, the possibility of large sales could also exist. But record companies are often unable to supply the records to the smaller market consumers because records in these markets are ordered and controlled by major racks…who feel more comfortable buying product that has already been established in, more often than not, the larger markets.
So why does radio in smaller markets have to suffer because of an inefficient product delivery system? That’s the way it is…or has been. However, that fact of the business is on the verge of a dramatic change…a change spearheaded by Network 40 that will revolutionize product sales. But that’s for another Editorial. Just remember “the Diamond Project.â€
Because of instant sales reports, record companies are quick to give up on new projects. If a record by a new artist doesn’t show immediate results, record companies react. This isn’t the fault of just record companies. Programmers see this sale information as well. They are quick to quote sales figures as an excuse to drop a record early.
And then there is the superstar problem. Everyone knows that record sales for all artists increase when superstars release albums. The entire industry rides the coattails of major artists with major records. The problem arises when major stars go months, sometimes years between releases. This was one of the major factors that chilled Top 40. In “The Good Old Days,†major recording acts released a single every three months. It allowed programmers to feature more new artists because the audience was never far away from a big hit by a big group. The same was true for Country.
Now, it’s a different story. The Major acts in Top 40 began building tours around album releases. The tours became longer and so did the time between releases. It’s hard to work on an album when you’re touring every week. Major acts began releasing albums every other year.
The same is happening to Country today.
What’s the answer? To record companies, it’s more new artists. There’s no choice. You have to release more product to find the next superstar. The only way to produce the next superstar is to give those with talent a chance. The more new product that is exposed, the better the chances.
To programmers, it’s a shortened playlist. The audience is comfortable with more recurrents and Oldies. Those songs are familiar. The audience is confused by new artists who sound alike. As I’ve pointed out, this is a good policy for the short term, but in the long run, unless Country music produces new stars, the passion will begin to ebb and Country will face the same problems now plaguing Top 40.
Every Country programmer knows this, but as one told me, “Gerry, I want to live to be 60, but first I’ve got to make it to 30.â€
Unfortunately, those are the same numbers now being applied to playlists.