Category: MCRFB (Billboard) News

Programming Beyond the Music Determines Stations’ Success or Failure for Better Audience Appeal 

By BILL GAVIN
Billboard Contributing Editor

AS SOME OF OUR READERS have already surmised, I am not a columnist by profession. Nor, if I may point on the obvious, am I even a writer. Aside from this weekly excursion. I devote most of my time advising and consulting with a number of radio stations in the U. S. and Canada, trying to assist them toward higher ratings and bigger profits.

It is necessary to present this personal preamble to explain that in the course of my work I am constantly faced with the problem of adapting program policies and plans to meet competitive situations in various cities. In no two cities are the problems the same. A policy or formula that will work in one place usually falls short in another.

Broadcasters are notoriously label-prone. They want to put a name tag on every policy. They use such names as “Top 40,” “Chicken 40,” “Rhythm and Blues,” “All Talk,” “Good Music,” “Town and Country,” and so on. Unfortunately, none of these tags accurately describes a specific program operation any more. Modern radio has brought unlimited variations to each classification.

THIS IS WHY SO OFTEN WE find the manager of a good music station (for example) that is not snaking the grade, thinking in terms of a switch to a top 40 policy. The same kind of confused thinking often prevails when the lagging top 40 operation switches to good music, or to some completely different program approach. Such abrupt policy reversals may prove highly successful; others may compound disaster. It is entirely possible that key adjustments within a general program policy may bring the desired improvements.

Top 40 programming for instance, is no longer a projection of local record sales plus a few picks. Recent developments have attracted attention to such variations as the all-request survey, the tight playlist, controlled frequency of plays, distributor sales surveys, etc. Upgrading of production, promotion and /or program personnel may provide the key to a brighter future.

In the field of good music (an inaccurate term which I use with some reluctance), there is usually a great deal of room for improvement. A program director, in his determination to avoid a “top 40″ sound, often turns his back on many pop hits that fit perfectly into his established pattern. Or, if they are on his playlist, they are played too infrequently to be of any great value. In selecting his music, he consults his own ear rather than relying on the proven audience appeal of certain singles and LP’s. Commercial standards for music selection work just as successfully for good music stations as for top 40’s.

TRENDS IN COUNTRY/WESTERN, and also in R&B, show that many successful stations in these fields have adopted the bright pacing and crisp production characteristics of top 40 operations. In their music, the disk jockey’s choice is being replaced by the people’s choice.

A small but growing number of stations are using the phone as a program tool. Some invite their listeners to phone for their favorite music. Others solicit phone votes on new records. A few stations have experimented successfully with putting their phone callers on the air with their comments and questions concerning subjects of common interest. Some phone interviews are taped and edited for special feature programming, not only as a part of the news, but more broadly as a matter of human interest. While there is no central formula for using the phone in broadcasting, the persistent success of this technique in various cities makes us conclude that by involving listeners directly in our programming, we are attracting and entertaining a larger audience.

With all the newer devices and techniques of modern radio, its great common denominator continues to be recorded music. The infinite variety of musical sounds and styles available on records defies rigid classification. This makes communication difficult at times when it is necessary to discuss music policy. Even among professional radio people, one encounters differences in interpreting such terms as jazz, good music and (of all things) rock ‘n’ roll.

EACH MUSICAL SELECTION THAT goes on the air is somewhat like a beam of light, illuminating a certain segment of the audience according to its breadth and intensity. The general type of music determines the breadth of appeal; the depth with which it penetrates is determined by its popular appeal — often referred to as “hit potential.”

Communication becomes somewhat easier when we discuss music in terms of listener reaction. Given a specific segment of musical tastes on which to focus our musical beams of light, it is then up to the programmer to achieve the depth of penetration necessary to build good ratings.

_______________

Information, credit, and news source: Billboard; July 4, 1964

To ‘Program’ A Radio ‘DJ’ Or Not. The Debate Lingers

By BILL GAVIN
Billboard Contributing Editor

Some radio people don’t like the term “disk jockey.” Nobody seems to know where or when the term originated. In spite of many attempts to find a more suitable substitute, the name has stuck and has come into common usage. Webster’s dictionary says, “disk jockey: a person who conducts a radio program of recorded music, interspersed with chatter, jokes and commercials.” There is some question whether the word is properly “disk” or “disc,” but since lexicographers give the two spellings identical meanings, we are apparently free to make our own choice of spelling.

In a search for a more distinctive title for the trade of “conducting a radio program of recorded music,” some stations publicize their disk jockeys as “personalities.” This has always struck me as an awkward and highly misleading term. Fortunately, it has not become widely used.

A current fad is to refer to the station’s dj’s as “the good guys.” Whether or not this implies that the dj’s of all other stations are bad guys, I wouldn’t know. It is not likely, however, that our dictionaries will ever list “good guys” or “personalities” as synonymous for“disk jockeys.”

Not only is the real difference of opinion over what to call a disk jockey, there is also some little variety in what is expected of him on the job. More than one program director has said: “We don’t want any time-and-temperature jocks.” They were referring, of course, to the standard minimum for “top 40″ dj’s, whose air words are strictly limited to time signals, weather announcements, station’s call letters and their names, all endlessly reiterated. Special promo announcements are fully written out, and the rest are detailed instructions about when, where and how to identify the various records. The ability to adlib is not considered an essential qualification for such an assignment.

Although a lot of progressive radio people turn up their noses at such a stereo-typed formula operation, many stations employ it with considerable success. It has certain advantages: It guarantees the briefest minimum of talk between records; the station sounds the same at all times of the day; and an experienced dj can speedily master the job and high salaries for skilled men are unnecessary, which has a beneficent effect over head costs. Such advantages are important in smaller markets, where potential billings are limited, but a number of large cities also include similar minimum operations.

When the controls and limitations are removed from the disk jockey, and he is told to make his show colorful and entertaining.the question is: what does he have to say? All too often what he has to say turns out to be self-important, long winded, unfunny and down right dull. One of the most frequent failings of the so-called personality dj is his insistence on intruding himself at every possible opportunity. To him the music he plays is simply a breathing space in a continuous monolog. In a few rare cases, such a spotlight seeker may hold a big rating; in most cases he is soon recognized as a colossal bore, who is better suited to a job as a carnival barker or tourist guide.

One well-known program director decided a few years ago that he would make his dj staff personalities “by the book.” He established an elaborate system specifying what the dj’s could say, should say, and must say. Wit and humor were not simply permitted, they were required. Card files of gags and stories were inconstant use. An elaborate set of musical jingles was spotted rigidly through every hour oft he broadcast day. Did it work? Yes, it did, and the fact that it worked so well was a tribute to this particular program director’s imaginative genius. It is not, however, a system that could be recommended for general use.

The new school of disk jockeys that is emerging these days is well trained in the arts of brevity, pacing and production. The humor is spontaneous rather than lifted from a gag file. The comments are relevant, with a minimum of personal reference. Most of all, the music is the show, and the dj’s function is simply to present his show in as interesting a manner as possible.

There’s no reason why a disk jockey has to be an automation. He can sound like a human being. Its unfortunate that more of them don’t. END

_______________

Information, credit, and news source: Billboard; March 21, 1964

From the MCRFB NEWS archive: 1964

The Bill Gavin Newsletter

By BILL GAVIN
Billboard Contributing Editor

“TOP 40 RADIO,” as we have known it for a decade, is fast becoming obsolete. “Top 40,” as a term of reference relating to a music format based on singles sales, will undoubtedly continue in our vocabulary for some time to come. In practice, however, the number of stations actually using a full 40 best selling singles is rapidly decreasing. The majority of pop format stations today have reduced their applicable lists of hits to 25 or 30 titles. The day of the playlist numbering 80 to 100 titles has passed. These days a list of 60 titles is considered long.

INTERESTINGLY enough, a good many stations decline to publicize the fact they have shortened their surveys. These stations continue to print and distribute a full top 40, or top 50, as they have done for years past. Their program directors will tell you privately that they are actually playing only a portion of the records on their charts. For some reason. not clearly understood, they are reluctant to publish a limited list of the hits they are playing, which omits some singles that are still selling better than some others that are being played. Other stations with attenuated surveys make no secret about it, they publish their top 30s with no attempt at concealment. There are two slightly different approaches now being taken to the short survey. In one case, the top survey items are simply listed according to tabulations of sales reports. The other system deletes the older hits that are dropping down rapidly, so that the resulting list of 30 may actually he a blue-penciled 40.

A few stations, accepting the principle of a smaller number of records for airplay, still cling to the mystic magic of the number 10. They continue with a full-blown survey of 40 hits but hold down their “extras” to only 10 or 15. Such playlists obviously have less room for new releases than lists of “25 plus 25.”

PEOPLE in the record business quite naturally regard these changes in radio program policies with some misgivings. The sale of single records. as everybody knows, is almost entirely controlled by airplay. Some record men express the fear that widespread curtailment of playlists will reduce the exposure of new product. A number of radio people consider such fears to be groundless. “What’s the good of 40 or 50 extras on a playlist?” asks one radio man. “Most of them never get played often enough to find out if they’re hits or not. With only 20 extras. and 30 survey records, all the new things on your list get played at least every three or four hours all day long.” Another program director puts it this way: “Every time we knock a tired old hit off our chart, it makes room for something new. With this new system we’ll not only break more new hits but we’ll also stir up lots more interest and excitement in new records, new artists and new sounds. The record people all ought to be cheering us, instead of finding fault.”

SUCH A STATEMENT of the new policy should make good sense, but apparently it does not. Judging from comments and inquiries that have been coming in to me, a good many people seem to think that a playlist is shortened by chop- ping new tunes off the bottom. This is not so in the big majority of cases. The first chopping is done on the older hits that have dropped down below 20 or 25. Then the half hits, whose sales have been fair, but which have failed to show improvement for two weeks, are dropped. This makes room for the more dynamic newcomers, either with a number on the chart or as “hot comers” standing next in line for a number next week.

AT THIS POINT, the playlist would show about 10 titles in addition to the chart – a total of 35 to 40 selections. The final 10 or 15 on the list will be about equally divided among (a) previous picks that still could be hits, (b) regional hits that were passed by the first time around, and (c) brand-new releases.

If every pop format station in the nation played only five new records a week – many will continue to play more – it would be practically certain that every worthwhile new release would get fair exposure in a number of markets, large and small.

True enough, promoters will find it more difficult to get big station picks in some cities. In others, of course, this condition has existed for quite some time and will not be a new experience.

Let’s get one point quite clear: The new trend is toward a shorter survey. It is not in the direction of drastic curtailing of airplay on newer material. The emphasis is on weeding out the weaker sides – either weak from the infirmities of old age, or weak from an inherent inability to build sales. This does not imply an impetuous haste to delete every item that has passed its sales peak. The occasional smashes, like a Dean Martin or a Louis Armstrong, continue selling in big volume for a long time after they have dropped out of the No. 1 position, and radio will keep its “umbrella” over them while they’re moving out of the rack locations. On the other hand, fast dropping items become candidates for oblivion.

What the change does imply is that radio programmers now rely less blindly on statistics. There is more evaluation of statistical data to interpret in terms of strongest possible airplay. END

_______________

Information, credit, and news source: Billboard; September 12, 1964