I don’t disagree with you at all. But, here are some of my quick thoughts: radio often plays it safe (I’m guilty here!!) by watching other sources for guaranteed hits
It came down (to me) as a station perhaps 1) lacking budget for its own research and/or 2) not wanting to RISK anything on new music. In other words: play it safe by playing the KNOWN/familiar hits and if we can’t afford to poll our own audience…then look at soundscan, YouTube, Spotify, iTunes, the other stations we know are paying for research, etc.
Now, about risk: maybe it would be easier to risk if the station was the 3rd, 4th, 5th station in town playing the same music. The risk there may be an easier pill to swallow because you want to stand out by being the place for new music.
Matt, Thank you for another great article! This is both timely and thought provoking. Keep up the great work you're doing, it's incredibly helpful and needed.
As a music consumer, I can spend hours trying to find new music every week. Yes, I'll research artists from the last 50 years...recently finding new releases from Melissa Manchester...to Belinda Carlisle...to Hunter Hayes...to Owl City, you understand. Radio stopped being my source ... and in the last few years, Billboard has stopped as well (tied to the theme of your article.) For a few minutes yesterday, I turned on the local CHR station..."Flowers", "Calm Down" and "Snooze"...I feel like we haven't changed the calendar.
My comment is tied to the 1990's...those years when Billboard would not rank a record in their Hot 100 until a physical single was available. (My dark years...think "Iris" only peaking at #9 on the Hot 100...but 18 weeks as Airplay number one...assuming my Joel Whitburn book is correct.) Back in those days, I'd have to buy an import CD single for $9.99 or buy the album (of course) to take the song home. Granted, I am sure these anomalies happened over the decades but my point is Billboard has, at times, not fulfilled their mission of ranking 'The Hits.'
Matt - Great analysis. I do think your section on PPM and Ratings in general is the real clue to the decline in current music on the radio. PPM is living with a much smaller sample than the old diary days in the top 50 markets. The same meters in the same households for years really shrinks the sample. Imagine if all the national election polls just talked to the same 1,500 households for 2 years? Even in the diary markets we have maybe 300 households involved in a 1000 person sample. Are these households early adaptors? - probably not. In fact I bet most of them are late adaptors or laggards (the last to catch on to anything). It's also becoming an older and older sample every year. The technology used to collect the data is so outdated that younger participants won't bother with it.
As someone who used to work for a radio research company, I don't understand how Nielsen gets away with such small sample sizes. Programmers keep or lose their jobs based on fewer people than we'd allow clients to break out separately in a callout report or AMT.
I don’t disagree with you at all. But, here are some of my quick thoughts: radio often plays it safe (I’m guilty here!!) by watching other sources for guaranteed hits
It came down (to me) as a station perhaps 1) lacking budget for its own research and/or 2) not wanting to RISK anything on new music. In other words: play it safe by playing the KNOWN/familiar hits and if we can’t afford to poll our own audience…then look at soundscan, YouTube, Spotify, iTunes, the other stations we know are paying for research, etc.
Now, about risk: maybe it would be easier to risk if the station was the 3rd, 4th, 5th station in town playing the same music. The risk there may be an easier pill to swallow because you want to stand out by being the place for new music.
I get the same sense you do that avoiding risk is a major motivator here. Of course, being too risk averse is itself risky.
Matt, Thank you for another great article! This is both timely and thought provoking. Keep up the great work you're doing, it's incredibly helpful and needed.
As a music consumer, I can spend hours trying to find new music every week. Yes, I'll research artists from the last 50 years...recently finding new releases from Melissa Manchester...to Belinda Carlisle...to Hunter Hayes...to Owl City, you understand. Radio stopped being my source ... and in the last few years, Billboard has stopped as well (tied to the theme of your article.) For a few minutes yesterday, I turned on the local CHR station..."Flowers", "Calm Down" and "Snooze"...I feel like we haven't changed the calendar.
My comment is tied to the 1990's...those years when Billboard would not rank a record in their Hot 100 until a physical single was available. (My dark years...think "Iris" only peaking at #9 on the Hot 100...but 18 weeks as Airplay number one...assuming my Joel Whitburn book is correct.) Back in those days, I'd have to buy an import CD single for $9.99 or buy the album (of course) to take the song home. Granted, I am sure these anomalies happened over the decades but my point is Billboard has, at times, not fulfilled their mission of ranking 'The Hits.'
The Hot 100's Lost Decade of the 1990s, when record labels were doing everything they could to kill the single, really deserves it's own post!
Matt - Great analysis. I do think your section on PPM and Ratings in general is the real clue to the decline in current music on the radio. PPM is living with a much smaller sample than the old diary days in the top 50 markets. The same meters in the same households for years really shrinks the sample. Imagine if all the national election polls just talked to the same 1,500 households for 2 years? Even in the diary markets we have maybe 300 households involved in a 1000 person sample. Are these households early adaptors? - probably not. In fact I bet most of them are late adaptors or laggards (the last to catch on to anything). It's also becoming an older and older sample every year. The technology used to collect the data is so outdated that younger participants won't bother with it.
As someone who used to work for a radio research company, I don't understand how Nielsen gets away with such small sample sizes. Programmers keep or lose their jobs based on fewer people than we'd allow clients to break out separately in a callout report or AMT.