Tag: music industry

4/22/1994

It began as one small step by The Network Forty over two years ago. This week, it became a giant step for the radio and record industries.

With this week’s issue, even the venerable R&R begins charting records based on actual airplay. It’s been a long time coming, but the change has come.

With the industry now relying on actual spins instead of adds and chart moves, a new age of honesty id dawning. No longer will radio programmers be able to respond to pressure from record promoters by simply adding a song to their chart. If a record is being played, it is an add. And if it isn’t being played, it is not an add.

This is truly the dawning of anew age in our business. What began as a glimmer of an idea two years ago in the halls of The Network Forty is now reality. I want to give credit to those who believed from the beginning. Pat Gillen, Dwayne Ward and Brian Burns worked within the framework of The Network Forty to shape the format and convince the radio and record industries that PPWs were the wave of the future. And though radio has been extremely supportive in the past year, some special thanks are due to those who supplied their plays before I became “the thang” to do. They are: Steve Wyrostok, Tom Poleman, Sean Phillips, Rick Stacy, John Ivey, Chuck Beck, Leslie Fram, Bill Webster, Randy Ross, Casey Keating, John McFadden, Kris Van Dyke, Stu Smoke, Mike Steele, Roger Scott, Neil Sullivan, Ken Scott, John Jaynes, Steve Bender and Jim Richards. That’s to these people, its working.

For years, record companies have accepted adds without play (or put into lunar rotation) as a last resort to show activity on particular records. Although it’s hard to find any executive who would condone paper adds, it’s equally difficult to find anyone who hasn’t accepted a paper add at one time or another as an acceptable way to keep a record moving up the chart. Sometimes the ends justified the means, because radio programmers who followed charts would see continued activity on a record and possibly consider it for airplay. More often, however, hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent to prop up records that were not hits. The system was wrong, but record companies were comfortable with it, so it continued.

And it wasn’t just record companies that caused these inaccuracies to grow and prosper. Radio programmers who couldn’t say no (or who needed promotions to make their station more exciting) used the system to their advantage. The record might not be right for the radio station, but if the promotion was offered, many found ways to add the record without play. It was the best of both worlds. Radio programmers got the promotion without having to play a record that didn’t fit their format.

With PPWs and BDS, we can all kiss that easy out good-bye.

Now, programmers must judge each record on merit. Promotions will still be used to make marginal records “sound” a little better, but, by and large, the determining factor will be merit.

Record companies are more careful. A bigger commitment is made before the record is released.

Programmers will have to believe as well. Once a programmer believes, a commitment must be made. Records will have to be played. No more “add it, but don’t play it.”

You can run, but you can’t hide.

The dishonesty inherent in the old system is gone. And many programmers, who perpetuated the distrust and dishonesty, must accept the fact that there are no more secrets. Many of us added records in the past with little or no airplay for various reasons. Keeping rotations a secret was a necessity. Many hid behind the weak excuse that they needed to keep the competition in the dark. Let’s be perfectly honest. That was never the real reason. Any competitor worth his salt would always be able to determine rotations on your station. And now, with BDS monitoring, these are no secrets.

Programmers who refuse to provide accurate information regarding actual airplay are suffering from delusions. You’re lying to yourself. Face up to reality. There is no need to play games. There are no reasons to hide. Many programmers seem to believe that they operate in a vacuum. Your list is not sacrosanct. What you play is on the radio. People hear it. BDS monitoring makes it easier, but here’s a news flash…people listen. Anyone with a little time can determine what’s on the air and how often songs rotate. Wake up and smell the coffee. It’s boiling out of the pot.

The record community wants honesty. A record company may not like the fact that you don’t believe in the merit of its record, but the label needs that information. Whether or not record companies have been dragged kicking and screaming into the age of awareness isn’t the point. The fact is that in today’s world, record companies want, need and expect honesty.

As do your peers.

So give it to them!

The overwhelming majority of radio programmers are completely behind accurate airplay reporting. Without radio’s help, The Network Forty couldn’t have begun the Plays Per Week system two years ago. Without radio’s commitment, no trade magazine could post a PPW chart. If you are a programmer who is reluctant to provide information on actual plays, ask yourself why. Others will certainly be asking that question about you and may be coming up with answers that certainly aren’t to your benefit.

Is there any reasons for a programmer to refuse to report PPWs if he isn’t playing games or being blatantly dishonest? If there is, please let me know. I will be glad to provide a forum for other reasons. I just can’t come up with any on my own.

To quote the Eagles, “Did you do it for love? Did you do it for money? Did you do it for spite? Or did you have to, honey?”

In the ‘90s, honesty is the best policy. Open communication is the key.

“Who is gonna make it? We’ll find out in the long run.”

3/25/1994

Last week, several major record companies changed the way they’ve been doing business for the past decade and in the process, effectively changed the way the industry as a whole will do business in the future.

For years, record companies have paid independent record promoters for records added on radio stations depending on their status in Radio And Records. Independent record promoters were paid on a sliding scale based solely on the “Parallel System.”

No longer.

Independent budgets have been slashed and a sliding pay scale has been developed, depending only on market size and the number of times a record is actually played. The new criterion seems to be an independent record promoter will be paid for working a particular station when the record has been played at least 14 times over a two-week period.

How will this affect radio? If you’re not getting compensation from an independent record promoter, the effect won’t be immediately apparent. If you’re a radio station whose budget is augmented by regular payments from an independent record promoter in return for a working relationship, the effect will be immediate and drastic.

Basically, you can kiss that kiss you’ve been getting good-bye.

The budgets for independent projects within record companies are being redirected and reduced. This affects the compensation many radio stations have been receiving from independent record promoters. That compensation will be drastically reduced and, in many instances, eliminated completely.

Times have changed…for the better. Reality is now reality. Paper adds aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. It’s what you play and how many times you play it. And R&R status is meaningless.

If you aren’t represented by an independent record promoter, how are you affected? Your status with the record companies and the resultant perks and promotions they are capable of providing, will depend on airplay and relationships.

The playlist chart, the all-important subjective record ranking that has long been a staple of the record business and a thorn in the side of radio programmers, is an Edsel. The industry no longer cares.

It’s about time, isn’t it?

The industry is interested only in how many times a record is played. As radio programmers, it makes our job much easier. If you’re using one of the many music scheduling software systems, a punch of a button prints out a historical ranking of actual airplay. No more guesswork on your part. No more hours spent figuring out if a song should move from #11 to #7 and what should do down to make room for it. You don’t have to worry about those Tuesday afternoon calls asking for a three-point jump on your playlist. The industry wants reality.

To paraphrase Dick Vitale, “It’s PPWs, baby!”

As we’ve trumped before, your Plays Per Week have always been important to The Network Forty. We’ve been printing PPWs for over two years. Now that this method has become an industry standard, PPWs are all the more important. If you’re in a BDS market, your airplay is monitored already. Supplying your PPWs is necessary because your listing of actual plays supplements BDS data, throws out sampling of records played during syndicated shows and lists titles of some songs BDS might not sample. It is the only way for you to control the accurate information flow based on what you’re broadcasting. Plus, more and more, the record industry will use your PPWs to determine the success or failure of those records on your radio station.

If you aren’t tracking PPWs and you are not monitored by BDS, you’re out in the cold. It is no longer just okay to supply PPWs to the industry. It’s imperative.

The Network Forty is proud to have been the early champion Plays Per Week. It is especially gratifying to see the industry accepts the data as a benchmark. As other trade magazines struggle to catch up, The Network Forty will continue to publish the most accurate and in-depth analysis of Plays Per Week available. It’s easier for us. With your help, we’ve been doing it for years.

Our special Charts pull-outs supply all the information you need. You’ll find a listing of the 40 most played titles in the nation side-by-side with our Retail Chart, the national Top 40 in album sales. On the flip side, you’ll find The Next 40 ranked by PPWs, the most-added records of the week and the most-requested songs in the nation. This overview is complemented by a statistical breakout of each category (PPWs by region, analysis of the leading retail records and requests by individual stations) inside each issue.

The Network Forty has the most accurate listing of national and regional airplay available. Our list of PPW stations is deeper than any other available source. Other trade magazines are just now beginning to compile this type of research. Plays Per Week is an original concept of The Network Forty and we’ve had two years to get it right. We’ve worked hard to make PPWs a concept accepted by the industry as a whole and we will continue to make The Network Forty information the most accurate available to the radio and record communities.

Excuse us for blowing our own horn (it’s a lead pipe cinch R&R isn’t gonna do it), but with our reporters’ continued input, we are committed to making The Network Forty your magazine for the ‘90s…and beyond.

3/18/1994

What to play? When to play it? When to stop?

These questions have faced programmers since radio began playing records. As formats split and become niched to super-serve specific slices of the audience, these questions have become even more prominent. The niche formats, coupled with the concurrent microscopic focus on narrow demographic and psychographic groups, have made the answers almost indefinable. Reams of research are printed out and studied weekly as programmers seek positive definitions.

Record promoters used to ask, “Why won’t you play my record?” The answers were usually one of three: “I don’t like it,” “I’m not sure it’s a hit,” or “I don’t see any sales.” That gave record companies the opportunity to get the song played on other stations to prove it was a hit, to stimulate sales with a marketing campaign and to hopefully change the program director’s personal feelings by playing the song for him again.

Today, the question is still the same. But the answers are very different. The two heard most often: “It doesn’t fit my format” and “It would confuse my core.” They’re hard to argue. Since formats are defined by programmers, record promoters are suspect if they say their record fits. It’s the programmer’s format; what does a record promoter know about radio? And since many programmers don’t even understand the tastes of their core, how is a record promoter supposed to argue?

Radio seems to be coming up with more reasons for not playing a record rather than searching for records that their audiences might love to hear. Today’s audience is evolving into a group that wants more and more to hear what’s new…not what’s old. In the ‘90s market, where the audience has many more avenues than ever before to be exposed to new product, it is imperative that radio move to the cutting edge of the locomotive rather than continue to hunker in the caboose. Too many programmers pay lip service to the term “cutting edge” rather than apply that definition to their station. Cutting edge is a lifestyle practiced by a segment of the audience that grows larger by the minute. We need to do more than acknowledge it. We must find ways to cater to it.

Mainstream Top 40 flourished in “the good old days” because those radio stations provided their audience with a window into the hip world of the future. What’s happening in the city? Where to go? Who’s coming in concert? What are the latest sounds? Those questions are now being answered by others on the mass communications super highway. Radio is now providing less information and certainly less hip information. New music? Not much.

It’s a mistake.

It will be a bigger mistake if radio doesn’t acknowledge outside factors and begin to make changes before the audience leaves in larger droves.

We in radio are quick to make decisions on what our audience likes and doesn’t like. Several weeks ago, I wrote an Editorial about a research project The Network Forty commissioned that questioned what many believed to be the basis of niche formats. As programmers, we like to believe that we know our audience. Too often, we reason accurately to inaccurate conclusions. These refrains have been in a power rotation too long: “Our audience doesn’t like to hear Rock songs next to Dance songs;” “Our ethnic audience will be confused by non-ethnic songs;” “We can’t cross formats…that’s a Country sound, not an R&B sound.”

Bullshit.

A perfect example of this failure to recognize the taste of our audience is illustrated on this week’s cover. MCA has destroyed the logic many of us cling to with the release of Rhythm Country And Blues, a CD featuring duets by seemingly divergent artists like Vince Gill and Gladys Knight, Al Green and Lyle Lovett, Aaron Neville and Trisha Yearwood, Little Richard and Tanya Tucker, Patti LaBelle and Travis Tritt, and George Jones with B.B. King, just to mention a few. Vince Gill singing “Ain’t Nothing Like The Real Thing,” Al Green on “Ain’t It Funny How Time Slips Away,” Clint Black wailing “Chain Of Fools” or Marty Stuart moaning “The Weight” would never fly with our audience, would it?

The CD debuted last week at #2 on the R&R chart, #10 on the Country chart and $21 on the Pop chart. It’s the first time in history that has happened. Probably because it’s the first time an album of this nature has been produced.

It sure as hell points out that our core audience might not be as confused as we are.

So, why is Mainstream Top 40 virtually ignoring this offering? I don’t have an adequate answer.

Here’s a record that crosses all boundaries, a record that virtually every segment of the audience likes. They even care enough to take the time, get in their car, brave the crowds at record stores, take out their money and make the purchase. What is happening with this CD proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that people’s tastes are not as far apart as the perceptions of most in our industries. Believe. Yet with few exceptions, Mainstream Top 40 has so far ignored it.

What’s wrong with this picture? The fish are in the trees again.

MCA has not released a single. Who cares? How many times have we accused a record company of releasing the wrong cut off a CD? Here’s an opportunity to pick one that makes the most sense for what you perceive to be the taste of your audience. How can you lose? If you dare to believe that a consumer must like a record to buy it (and if you don’t believe that, you aren’t reading this Editorial anyhow), then your research is already done.

We’re always looking for the one record that will bridge the gap across the formats. This one is a no-brainer.

And don’t simply pass this off as an anomaly. Maybe your audience isn’t as niched as you believe. Maybe your station is narrowcast because of your beliefs, not because of the tastes of your audience. Consider challenging your audience by challenging yourself. Consider that you may possibly increase your audience by subtle expansion and experimentation rather than lose peripherally by squeezing even more. Consider all these factors.

Then have the guts to make a move.

3/11/1994

This week celebrates The Network Forty’s fourth anniversary. Four years ago, The Network Forty began publishing a cutting edge magazine designed to be radio friendly and music/research-intensive. Our primary goal is to produce a weekly publication that serves as a needed tool to help those in our industry learn new and innovative ways to increase their efficiency.

Four years ago, The Network Forty began delivering overnight requests to all of our reporters. For the first time in history, programmers could see, on a daily basis, records that were reacting on different stations across the country.

This was the first of many new and exciting innovations.

Working closely with our friends in the radio and record communities, we debuted sections devoted to different aspects of our business: “Conference Call” poses specific questions to different programmers so their peers can share their thoughts; “Programmers Textbook” provides a forum for those in the business to teach others in their areas of expertise.

But perhaps the most innovative “change” championed by The Network Forty is Plays Per Week. Two years ago, The Network Forty began publishing PPWs with a small number of radio stations agreeing to participate. Most radio stations initially refuse to divulge what they considered to be trade secrets and the industry at-large took little notice. But as the months went by, The Network Forty staff was relentless in the pursuit of PPWs. We believed that it was the most honest and accurate barometer of actual airplay. Little by little, programmers began agreeing and our network of PPW reporters increased.

With the advent of BDS, airplay became the criteria used by the industry to judge a record’s success and Plays Per Week became an industry standard.

Our list of PPW reporters is now conclusive, with reporters spanning the scale from the largest (Z100 New York, Power 106 Los Angeles) to the smallest.

As other trade magazines suddenly jump on the Plays Per Week bandwagon, don’t forget that The Network Forty has been printing the definitive Plays Per Week Chart for the past two years. It would be easy to beat our chests, accept the acknowledgement that we’re the industry’s leader and say, “We told you so.” It’s more important to note that in addition to being the first to champion this innovation, The Network Forty has spent the past two years developing the research and relationships that make this chart the most accurate barometer of actual airplay available.

Why?

The Network Forty monitors Plays Per Week from computer-generated airplay reports supplied by all our participating reporters. Although BDS monitors actual airplay, The Network Forty system provides additional information. The Network Forty universe is much larger than that of BDS. Records that are showing substantial growth in unmonitored markets aren’t charted by BDS. You can see that actual growth and spot substantial future trends by studying The Network Forty PPW Chart. Unlike BDS, The Network Forty does not give credit for records played on the many syndicated programs being aired by stations. You won’t be confused as to what records are actually a part of a stations regular programming. And if technical failure prevents monitoring in certain markets, The Network Forty PPW Chart can provide an exact blueprint of actual plays.

A year ago, The Network Forty began an ongoing series of editorials aimed at redefining the shape of our industry. In many instances, these editorials were highly critical of R&R. For over a decade, R&R held the industry hostage with an outdated system that made it possible for records to move up the charts with no regard for actual airplay or sales. This antiquated system made it possible for paper adds and severe dayparting to manipulate the charts.

In September of last year, R&R finally responded to the pressures within the industry and promised a chart system based on actual airplay. Most of our readers know we have been critical of R&R. But what many have forgotten is that we welcomed R&R’s conversion and even allowed R&R and any other trade magazine to use our term “Plays Per Week” as the definition of charts based on airplay.

Why should The Network Forty give up a phrase we coined and made synonymous with actual airplay charts? Why didn’t we keep the franchise for ourselves? Simple. The Network Forty is confident in our belief that what is good for our industry as a whole is good for our magazine.

Recognizing the industry’s trend toward a more honest and accurate system, R&R finally responded last week and outlined their own changes, using The Network Forty’s term Plays Per Week as their definition. Unfortunately, that’s where the similarity ends. If R&R uses the same criteria described in their Country format (and R&R says the criteria for Top 40 will be the same), their attempt to regain their competitive stance comes too little too late.

Why is The Network Forty PPW Chart more accurate than the PPW process proposed by R&R? Several reasons. First, the universe. R&R continues to hurt the radio industry in general and Top 40 in particular by refusing to include more radio stations in its reporting base. Downsize seems to be R&R’s byword. Second, their methodology is misguided. R&R is weighting their reporters, not just by market size (as does The Network Forty), but by Arbitron ratings. Everyone in our business, particularly those in radio, knows Arbitron research is suspect at best and inaccurate at worst. Arbitron’s inability to accurately reflect the actual ratings of Mainstream Top 40 is a known fact. The weighted inflation of Hispanic and Urban diaries has changed the face of radio…drastically…detrimentally. But R&R ignores these facts and uses this inaccurate research to weight the research. Then throw in the “Add Factor.” According to R&R, the Add Factor “…measures the quality of adds. The AF represents the combined weight of all stations adding a song, reduced to a 1-50 scale, 50 = 100%.”

Huh?

Ask R&R what time it is and they’ll tell you how to build a watch.

R&R’s proposition puts too much emphasis on the wrong station sin the major markets. Since Arbitron traditionally rates Urban and Hispanic formats higher and Top 40 and Rock-leaning formats lower, a chart based on this methodology will make it much more difficult to break new Mainstream and Rock-leaning records.

At this particularly critical point in history, both the radio and record industries need positive plans for increased success, not roadblocks. Radio doesn’t need restrictions and definitions that rely on Arbitron’s inaccurate research. Record companies certainly don’t need restrictive charts that make it harder to break new artists.

The Network Forty accepts Plays Per Week information from all of our reporters…all 265 of them. Of course, larger markets will be weighted heavier, but not the detriment of music that is being programmed on other stations that aren’t monitored by BDS or sampled by R&R.

From the description provided, it seems that R&R plans to chart plays on stations that are, for the most part, already being monitored by BDS. And then compressing that data through a weighting system that makes no sense.

Another dog…another empty knapsack.

The Network Forty provides our industry with the definitive Plays Per Week Chart on Page 3. Beside it, you will find The Network Forty Retail Chart. The two most important barometers in charting the success of a record are airplay and sales. The Network Forty prints those charts side-by-side so you can easily see what’s happening on a national level.

The Network Forty Retail Chart differs from SoundScan in similar ways that our PPWs differ from BDS. We research many accounts that are not a part of SoundScan. Because of our relationship with these accounts, sales trends are quicker to spot than on SoundScan.

Inside the back page, you’ll find additional record information, including The Next 40, a listing of, you guessed it, records ranked 41 through 80. This chart shows the total number of stations playing each record as well as the number of adds each received. We’ll also chart the most-added records of the week and the Top 10 most-requested records of the week.

These pages will provide you with a quick reference to everything you need to know when doing your music: The Plays Per Week Chart, Retail Chart, Next 40, Most Added and Most Requested.

To make it even easier, we’re providing this information as a special pull-out so you don’t even have to look for it. It will find you.

In addition to these features, you’ll find our exclusive breakouts of PPWs so you can chart regional record activity. Also debuting this week is a new retail page called “Bin Burners” that will provide in-depth analysis of the hottest records across the country. “Hot” meaning the records enjoying the biggest increases in sales over the previous week.

These changes, along with others that you’ll see in the coming weeks, are the result of months of “networking” with our many friends in the radio and record industries. The Network Forty continues to provide a reflection of the wants and needs of our reporters and readers. We thank those who worked with us to make these changes a reality. With your continued help and support, The Network Forty will continue to be the cutting edge magazine that provides the industry with the best barometer of our changing times.

The Network Forty is four years old this week. We publish and prosper because of the support you’ve provided. We cherish that support and work hard to make sure we earn it.

You’ve made The Network Forty the most widely read and talked-about publication in the ‘90s. Your friends at The Network Forty thank you.

2/11/1994

I was talking music with a programmer last week. When I asked about a particular record, he told me he couldn’t play it because “…it would confuse my core.”

Say what?

This programmer is a male, in his late 30s, programming a radio station that targets 16-26 year-old Hispanic females. And he’s making conscious decisions about what will confuse his core? Excuse me, but I’ve got to believe that he is probably a more confused than his core.

More often than not, we have people in programming positions who are not only older than their target audience, but haven’t a real clue as to what their target audience does and doesn’t like. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe that you have to be a part of your demo and psychographic group to program to it. I do, however, believe that you have to be familiar with your core’s habits, lifestyles and emotions to make objective decisions about what they like and don’t like.

If you are not a part of your core audience in age, sex and lifestyle, you have to spend a lot of time among them to connect. And if you’re male, white and middle-aged, you’re not going to be able to hang in the hood with 16-26 year-old Hispanic females. Not without getting jacked up by somebody. So if you can’t make up-close and personal observations, you must have people around you who do. And those people must have the power to make decisions based on what’s popular within your core audience.

Too often we depend exclusively on audience research to tell us what our core likes. Relying on that research, we begin to reason accurately to inaccurate conclusions. When we have to use computer print-outs to answer lifestyle and emotional questions about our audience, we’re in trouble.

Why? Because audience research is all to shallow and impersonal. Audience research doesn’t have the time or ability to delve into the true lifestyle of the respondents. Radio must do that, because choosing and listening to a radio station is an emotional experience. You must connect with their emotion or they won’t connect with you.

Too often in research, we ask the wrong questions. As with all computer programs, if you put garbage in, you get garbage out. How many programmers design their own questionnaires? If you talk with members of your audience, you ask the questions. If you’re commissioning the research, should you design the questions? Many times, we’re getting the right answers to the wrong questions.

Case in point: When the aforementioned programmer told me a particular record might confuse his core, I doubted his ability to know his core. I think a lot of program directors truly believe they know what their audience wants, but they don’t. So, The Network Forty commissioned an audience survey of our own. See, I believe in research. I’m just adamant that it be used properly.

We chose Power 106 and The Beat in Los Angeles for several reasons: They’re both programmed by people who are not part of their demographic core; they’re both programmed to an ethnic audience most perceive to be narrow in their musical tastes and they’re in Los Angeles, so I am familiar with each station and how the stations are positioned. What’s more, programmers Rick Cummings of Power 106 and Keith Naftaly of The Beat are both in tune with their audiences, both here and in stations they’ve programmed before. They are rarely guilty of “confusing” their core. Although they both do a lot of research, they are intensely aware that emotion plays a large part of a winning radio station. And neither was the programmer who gave me the “core consusion” answer.

I picked a record that neither had played and probably never considered playing: Meat Loaf’s I Would Do Anything For Love. Certainly not a record either station should play, right? Their audience wouldn’t like it, right? It would confuse their core, right?

You decide.

The facts are: 93% of the people who cited Power 106 or The Beat as their favorite station were familiar with Meat Loaf’s I would Do Anything For Love. Eight-one percent said they liked it and wouldn’t switch stations if they heard it. Forty percent said it was one of their favorite songs. Although over 50% said they wished their favorite station would play the song, nearly 100% said they didn’t expect to hear the song on Power or The Beat.

In a market the size of Los Angeles where positioning and image are often as important as the music, both Power and The Beat were probably right not to play Meat Loaf or other Rock songs. Audience slices in major markets are so slim that formats must be narrowcast in many instances. It also must be noted that Rick wasn’t surprised at the results of this survey.

But, if you’re in a less competitive market, don’t be too quick to make an objective decision based on what you think your core audience wants. Especially if that decision is based on your perception of research that is further and further away from your input and control.

Don’t think. Come to a decision based on several factors: research, input from your staff who interacts with your core, your observations of your core, specific research outside the norm and your own, professional opinion. Do not become a victim of your own limited environment and perceptions of what you think your audience wants…especially when you’re programming to an audience whose lifestyles are so different from yours.

Anyone for tennis?

2/4/1994

I was racking 80 miles-an-hour down Interstate 5, two hours late for the freak fest, radio twisted higher than the rpm’s when it hit me. The absolute purity of my perception wa so devastating that I almost took out the semi in the adjoining lane as I pulled off on the shoulder to think it through.

My station of choice of late has been KCBS, the new “Arrow 93 FM.” The CBS O-and-O has failed at more formats than the Buffalo Bills have Super Bowls, but recently, (more I’m sure through blind luck than any formulated plan) they’ve come a cropper.

The station has shot to the top of the prized 25-54 and 18-34 demos and even shows strong teens and 18-24 support. And it’s been n the air for only a few short months.

A typical Arrow promo says, “You know every song we play.” And I do.

Of course, I fall into their “core” age group. It’s easy to just pass the station off as a “hip” Oldies station appealing only to the Baby Boomers. I wondered about the younger demos and their perception, but I didn’t wonder long. At the party later that night, everyone I asked was familiar with the station and at least three-quarters said it was their favorite. It was an unofficial survey at best, but this group spanned the demographics from 18-40. And trust me, they were from all walks of life. And sub-life. And all said they liked the station because of the music.

Well, what’s the big revelation? It’s a good station and people like it, right? So?

Because in our over-researched world of take no chances, play it safe radio, the most popular radio station in Los Angeles is based entirely on music that in 95% of the cases was never researched.

No research!

Arrow plays Rock And Roll Oldies. Their library consists of Rock hits from the late ‘60s and early ‘80s with the majority from the ‘70s. And, boys and girls, during all of the ‘60s and most of the ‘70s, radio didn’t do music research. They let their audiences make decisions for them.

No music research? My God, how did we wind up with so many hits? It must have been stone, blind luck. There isn’t any other explanation. It certainly wasn’t ability or feel. Those attributes don’t exist.

Now, I’m not condemning music research. I’m just saying that music research, any research for that matter, is a tool…a part of the puzzle…certainly not the be-all and end-all for making final decisions. Music research can certainly shed light on the burn factor of most titles. But it can never predict.

Never.

Contemporary radio programmers must rely on their ears and gut instincts to make decisions on new music. Because more and more of us are depending on research, we avoid hard decisions, start drawing conclusions on what is not wrong rather than what is right, begin programming defensively and add fewer songs to our playlists.

What’s wrong with that, you ask?

In the short term, for a short time, nothing. Over the long haul, your radio station becomes stagnant, boring and predictable. And your audience leaves for something else.

We must add excitement to our radio stations and we must et particularly excited about the music we program. We have to get emotional about the songs we play. Hey, here’s a novel idea…we have to start actually listening to new music. Now I know that’s a scary thought for many of you, but it is necessary. Those of us in radio should be here because we have a passion for the music we play, not because we have a passion for the computers we program.

It is a fact that two of the most profitable radio stations in Los Angeles, KRTH and now Arrow, are based on songs that became hits without research.

Wow. Mind boggling, isn’t it?

The biggest problem with music research is that it puts too much emphasis on the negative. Seldom does new music test great. Often, we need to hear a song a few times before we can determine whether we like it or not. Music testing relies on one short hook. Given the narrow choices of the normal music test, new music will always test worse than the more familiar songs.

Had music research been done on Rubber Soul, it wouldn’t have been released. Forget Sgt. Pepper. More recently, what about Meat Loaf? The research would not have predicted Meat Loaf could have another hit. But the passion for the music bade believers; first out of MCA, then out of radio, then out of the audience.

The recent success of Alternative stations such as KROQ, Z100, WNNX and others is proof positive that the ratio audience is willing to listen to a radio station that exposes new product. It’s what Top 40 radio is all about. Familiar music, blended with what’s new.

We have to trust our instincts. We have to take chances. Why? To give the record companies a break? No. To excite the audience about our radio station. In many cases, we are boring them to death. And we’re boring them because we are over-researching our product.

If you are a program director, you are special. You have a gift. You have the ability to recognize hit records more readily than others. Use your gift. Take a tip from the Doobie Brothers: Listen To The Music. You know what your radio station should sound like. Listen to it. Stop judging it by a computer print-out. If you believe in a record, play it. Then research your audience to determine whether or not they like it. You should be right more than you are wrong. If you’re not, find another line of work. I would suggest something that requires no personality or original thought. Like computer programming. Or research.

If you’re unsure about a record after listening to it and after listening to the information from the record company, talk to others in radio who are playing it. Network. Make decisions using data from people who are in our business, familiar with what we do and are successful doing it.

Art cannot be categorized or predicted. Music is art. Radio is an art form.

Make a great frame and display it passionately. Your audience will react favorably.