Eric Norberg's Weekly Commentary

A part of each issue of The Adult Contemporary MUSIC RESEARCH Letter is Eric's commentary.  Here's this issue's comment:

In a re-test this week, South African Ms. Can Skylark moved up to our baseline "Recommended" score with her new track, MOVING ON, from a six-track EP called "Overdrive".  Once again, this track from her seems only to be available in the Western Hemisphere online.  It is apparently on iTunes, but it didn't turn up there in our searches; it does pop right up on cdbaby.com, though, and the song is right HERE

We can e-mail the MP3 to broadcast programmers who qualify for free record service -- so please request it by sending from your station e-mail address.  We will then attach the MP3 and send it back to the same address.  It's a high resolution stereo broadcast-quality MP3 though, and will require an e-mailbox capacity of 12 MB or more.
                                   ___________________________________

Rap has been with us for over a generation now.  Although it has made a lot of money for everyone involved in it, AC core listeners have been slow to warm to it, finding its rhymes simplistic, its attitude bullying, and its frequent lack of melody abrasive.  However, virtually all AC females are familiar with it; and even at the older end of the demo they do not automatically reject it.

In that context, when we first tested SEE YOU AGAIN by Wiz Khalifa with Charlie Puth recently, we commented that we had seldom tested a song where the score fluctuated as wildly, as the song progressed as this one, in AC appeal.  It has a pretty tune, dynamic changes -- and LOTS of rap.  The rap in the original version was too frequent and went on too long to leave the AC core females interested in it, if they didn't simply tune out before it was over.

We suggested an edit for readers to try that could materially raise the score by changing the balance of the song towards melody, without completely eliminating the rap.  One longtime reader rose to the challenge.  Edward Ford created exactly the edit we had envisioned, and when we put it through our testing process, the score leaped three of our seven scoring levels to our second-highest score!  Kudos to Edward! 

It goes on our "Recommended Playlist" (in this edit ONLY), and inasmuch as it is exclusive to us, we are making it available to radio professionals as a broadcast-quality stereo MP3.  If you want it, you will need to request it using your radio station e-mail account, and we will return your e-mail to you at that address with the song file attached.  We must strictly limit any music we may make available ONLY to those who qualify for free record service from the record companies!

So if you are willing to play just a few seconds of rap, the Edward Ford edit of SEE YOU AGAIN will be well-received by mainstream AC females!  By the way, with this excellent edit, it only runs 2:30 now, too.
                                   ______________________________

We have had conversations with our subscribers in the last few of weeks about Nielsen Ratings, and the People Meter technology.  The discovery that enhancing Nielsen's "inaudible" tones in one's signal can increase detections on People Meters and thus increase the reported ratings -- compounded with the marketing of a tool to do it with, from Voltair -- has really caught industry attention, and some of the points we tried to make in the past about Arbitron's poor methodology, and the subsequent switch to the questionable methodology of the People Meters, now seem to be points also being made by others.  A group owner in a PPM market has switched from Nielsen to Eastlan Ratings, making news in the industry.

To one correspondent this week, we replied, "Arbitron promised the encoding tones would be inaudible, and would be responsive to programming, which is why it was obvious from the start that measurement of classical and talk formats would be particularly difficult -- since these tones can only be sent when they would be lost in the programming, and thus inaudible to listeners.  More dense programming would assure the tones would be sent more oftren, and might be louder.

"Back when the PPMs were introduced, we also questioned how these body-mounted PPMs could be able to "hear" such tones accurately when they would only be "heard" by the meters through the speakers of the many radios they would be exposed to, which may have poor frequency response or may be at a distance.  That these tones have even a chance to be heard by PPMs under such adverse conditions means the tones have to be centered right in the milddle of the sweet spot in human hearing (in the Fletcher Munson curve), which makes them potentially more audible to people, and that means they would have to be sent at an especially low level to avoid being heard by listeners."

If stations were to start turning off Nielsen's encoders, they would not be listed in the Nielsen ratings at all -- but if enough summon the courage to do it, particularly stations with enough audience to show regularly in ratings, it would punch holes in the Nielsen data and ruin their credibility.  One can only dream!  Meantime, we hope more stations subscribe to Eastlan -- either instead of, or in addition to, subscribing to Nielsen.  Enough stations subscribing to the excellent and established Eastlan service in markets where Nielsen also operates will give Eastlan considerable credibility with ad agencies, and provide a needed "second opinion" on whatever Nielsen comes up with.
                                   ______________________________

As radio increasingly competes with other sources of music and content, it is worth reminding ourselves what radio is best at.  It makes little sense to compete with all-music services, especially in a world in which music services can be customized to the tastes of each listener, because broadcasting has an inherent disadvantage in that regard against narrowcasting.  Forty years ago, radio began to set itself up for this problem by stressing "much more music".  While indeed it is good to play a lot of music, radio is not and cannot be competitive against all-music services that can be customized to the individual's taste!

What radio IS best at is relating to the listener on an intimate one-to-one level -- and it's better at that than any other medium ever invented to date.  But doing that requires the presence on-air of live and relatable human beings, who unite -- and present on-air -- the various elements of programming...and do so in a context that is LOCAL to the listener. 

It is somewhat ironic that in this era of "social media", the ORIGINAL social medium -- radio -- does not seem to understand this.  And yet radio can still be the most intimate companion of all -- if radio elects to return to its strength, with live and local air talent regularly interacting with the listener over the air, one-on-one.


We must not lose sight of this:  Successful programming can be boiled down to a simple rule:  Build clear listener expectations of the station and what it presents, and then meet or exceed those expectations!  That's what keeps them listening, and that's what keeps bringing them back.

                                    ______________________________


Not long ago we shared with you details of an elaborate study conducted for Gene Autry's Golden West Broadcasters in Los Angeles in the 1970s which actually did show that radio ads can be more effective in generating accurate ad recall than television ads.  Despite that validation of the effectiveness of radio advertising, and despite radio ads costing just a fraction of what TV ads do, the GWB gift to the industry of the results of this expensive study were almost completely ignored, and to the best of our knowledge a similar study has never been conducted since.  It was ignored at the time probably because the study was seen as benefitting GWB and its own approach to radio more than it did radio as a whole
.

In reality, however, it meant much more to radio in general than was perceived at the time, and it should have become (and could still become) an important part of the arsenal of anyone selling radio.  Just as one can use rating info selectively, one could do the same with this study, concentrating on the "overall radio/overall TV" comparisons, if one chose.

In fact, the "all radio" and "all television" figures -- "for accurate recall of at least one advertisement broadcast by a given radio or TV station in the past hour" -- were almost exactly the same, at around 20%.  In this verified recall study, radio ads worked just about as well as TV ads, and for a fraction of the cost.  That was, and still is, very valuable information to have in selling radio advertising. 
There was a substantial increase over "all radio" in the accurate ad recall for the Golden West station, KMPC, due to its "personality" approach -- but instead of making KMPC look transcendant, the study showed the same effect applied to KLAC's country format and any other station in the market using a "personality" approach to air talent presentation.

That, too, is vital information even today -- and validates what many have these days come to believe: That the use of LIVE, LOCAL, interesting people on the radio, particularly as hosts in a music context, build a relationship with the listener, which results not only in greater station loyalty, but also increases the effectiveness of the radio advertising in that setting by up to 50%.  In radio, AIR TALENT can still make a huge and quantifiable difference in a station's ad effectiveness, and thus in the station's revenue -- and you can take that to the bank!

              _________________________________

We recently reminded programmers that one of the most-often-identified unmet needs of radio listeners -- especially AC core female listeners -- has been well-known for decades, because it keeps turning up in research.  The late Bill Gavin, our mentor, made the point clearly as early as the 1970's:  Announce what you are playing!  Tell them what the song and artist are!  They want to know, so tell them.  

This comment drew a response from a longtime reader, Buzz Brindle, who gave us permission to quote him by name...

Your commentary reminded me of something that surprised me when I sat in on an auditorium test for an oldies station in the early '90s, which was reinforced when I was programming an oldies station a few years ago.  I sat in the back of the room as a test participant, and wrote down my responses to the hooks like everyone else (my responses weren't included in the test results), just to get a sense of a respondent's experience.  Oddly, the moderator didn't prevent participants from verbalizing their reactions to the '60s and early '70s oldies which were being tested, so people were excitedly shouting out artist names and/or song titles as the test progressed.  These were P1s and P2s for the station, and the songs being tested were the perennial hits which had been played many thousands of times on the radio -- so I was amazed at how often they misidentified the artists and songs.  They were even getting wrong such highly identifiable artists as the Beach Boys and the Beatles!

Flash forward to the early 2000's, when I was programming an oldies station in our cluster.  Like most radio folks, I presumed that my oldies-partisan listeners woulod have a high level of awareness about the titles and artists of the '60s and '70s hits they'd heard hundreds of times during their lifetimes.  But, again, I discovered that I could not take that for granted.  Consequently, we started backselling title and artist information for those oldies, just as one would (or should) on a station which plays current music.

Another observation I made, and which I believe has been noted in the Music Letter in the past, is that it's much more effective from the listener's perspective if the title/artist info is backsold, rather than provided just prior to playing a song.  It's more likely that the question they're asking, if they've been listening all the way through, or tuned in halfway through a song, is "what is that?"  At the beginning of the song, it's more likely that their decision to stick with the song will be based on how the way it sounds satisfies their needs at the moment, and the title/artist info is less relevant.

Thanks Buzz!  If it's either/or, then yes -- the place to put the announcement of song and artist is after it has played.  Because that IS the next thing they want to know.  But we have always advocated introducing AND backselling everything played.  Nobody tunes out because you are telling them what you are playing, and many really do want to hear it -- even if they think they know, your announcement confirms it for them.

And here is one more thing to remember:  Stations that don't announce the music they are playing are showing that it is of no consequence to them -- that's it's just filler between the commercials.  The station that respects both the music and the listener enough to tell them what the music is shows a respect for the music AND the listener that makes a difference in how the station is perceived! 
              _________________________________

In all the angst we have been reading in the trade press lately over how Arbitron's "People Meters" are seen as upending previous rating trends and undermining niche formats, one point seems to have been overlooked: Arbitron's diary rating method is the most inaccurate ever used by a national rating company, subject to more limitations and skews than any other.  Although placement and cooperation issues still skew Arbitron's results, the meters at least seem to measure actual listener behavior, so they represent one step closer to reality

And we remind you that your goal as a programmer should not be to build
SHARE, which is simply an efficiency figure, but CUME -- which is actual circulation information, comparable to print circulation figures. 

If your cume is high but your share is low, advertisers simply have to buy more ads to reach your huge audience.  Big share and low cume means that just one ad will reach most of your audience, so advertisers only need to buy a few, and can save their budget for the station with the big
CIRCULATION!

              _________________________________

A longtime colleague in radio forwarded us a news item about a study conducted by Mark Kassof and Company about AM radio.  It shows that the format most associated with AM radio is Talk.  Surprise.  WE did that to our audience; just because listener expectations of engagement and interesting content are still more centered on AM than FM (as explained in depth in Eric's still-available book "Radio Programming: Tactics and Strategy") -- expectations that make talk programming still more welcome there -- broadcasters for over a quarter of a century have been creating a vast wasteland, with no music, on the AM band.  Listener expectations are based upon what we as broadcasters do!!!  So, we trained radio listeners not to expect music there, and sure enough they don't.

However, we remind broadcasters that in the late 1950's and the first half of the 1960's, most people didn't even HAVE an FM radio, which made it hard for FM to compete with AM radio.  At least today, even if they are mostly listening to FM, most people do HAVE an AM radio.  As with FM then, give them something they WANT to listen to, on the band they are not tuning in, and you can still get them to listen.  (And, for 80% of the available audience, that's music.)

Because of the availability of AM radios, it is still easier to get people to tune in AM today than it was to get them to tune in FM back then!  The music testing we do can and has made pop music work -- work well -- on AM.  But, it has to be programmed a bit differently from how it is on FM.  We can help.
                             _________________________________

For those wondering, we test each song from the beginning (no hooks), and keep playing the song in the testing process until the panel is ready to move on.  If the test reveals that the AC core female listener doesn't want to hear a song all the way through yet, it cannot yet be "recommended", for obvious reasons.  If there are no negatives to the song, though, it is scored as "borderline" -- meaning, don't play it yet -- but we will keep re-testing it for possible increased appeal with exposure.  Perhaps 5% of "borderline" songs eventually move up; most don't, so it is NOT a good idea to give airplay to a song that tests below the "recommended" level.
                                _________________________

Yet another album has been released in Africa by NiaNell!  Suffice it to say that the only artist in the world that we know of, who can be compared with Celine Dion for the AC format -- but who also composes and produces (and owns) her own recordings, and has the highest hit percentage on all her albums than any other artist we've ever tested -- offers her sixth album, "My Heart".  Since this album is currently completely unavailable on CD in the Western Hemisphere, we are happy to send a stereo broadcast-quality MP3 of her currently-"recommended" song to any radio station wanting to consider it for airplay (or label interested in considering releasing her in the Western Hemisphere).  Just e-mail us and ask us for it.  You will need to give us an e-mail account to send it to that can accept at least a 10 MB e-mail
                               __________________________

Publishing is not shown on the tracks we receive these days, which means we cannot warn you when a SESAC song turns up as "recommended" in our testing, most of the time....  So, stations without a SESAC license should do careful homework to make sure they play no SESAC music!  SESAC is owned by lawyers, and they subscribe to station-monitoring services, and they have already won a judgement of over $1,000,000 against a station that didn't have their license for "copyright violation".  The station played a few songs by Neil Diamond and Bob Dylan, relying on label notations that these songs were licensed by ASCAP.  SESAC paid a million dollars each to these gentlemen late in the last century to move their ASCAP compositions over to SESAC, so even if the label on the record says their compositions are ASCAP copyrights, they no longer are.  Jim Brickman's compositions are licensed by SESAC.  Plus, there are a few other releases, largely in the Country field, that are licensed by SESAC too -- as well as a lot of religious music that may turn up on paid Sunday morning religious programs.  A word to the wise.
                           __________________________


                 SPECIAL UNRESTRICTED DOWNLOADS
One of 2009's top AC hits, recommended as a "recurrent/oldie" to use for years to come, is "I DREAMED A DREAM" -- the astonishing live audition of an unprepossessing 47-year-old Scottish villager, Susan Boyle, for a TV program called "Britain's Got Talent".  The YouTube video scored over 60 million views, and in addition to its great appeal to the AC core female listener, it was the subject of TV coverage and news reports around the world.


This LIVE performance was never commerically released as a CD single, but since you'll need it in your future programming for years to come, you can download a ZIP file containing the MP3 audio of this performance by clicking HERE.

In August of 2012, to commemorate what would have been the 100th birthday of the biggest star the U.S. Public Television Service ever had -- Julia Child -- PBS created an astonishing digitally-modified tribute to "The French Chef" called KEEP ON COOKING, and posted the 3:43 track on YouTube for public performance. We tested the audio track, which features excerpts drawn from 40 years of Julia's PBS-TV broadcasts -- modified to make them song lyrics with Julia as the "singer", accompanied by a memorable and catchy tune, and found the core AC female listener in the U.S. LOVED it...not just as a tribute to Julia Child, who passed away in 2004 (and was the focus of a Meryl Streep movie, "Julia and Me", in 2009), but as a piece of music!  We are now recommending that this track go into your permanent Christmas Season playlist.

A novelty song?  Certainly -- but an actual song, which will have "legs" because it is enjoyed as music as well.  For your convenience in auditioning it and considering whether to use it on the air, the track is posted HERE as a ZIP file containing an MP3.  If you would like to review the actual YouTube video, which makes it clear that Julia actually said every word "sung" in it, here is a link to that video:

                 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80ZrUI7RNfI

                        ________________________

 

We now offer the option to subscribers of receiving the issue immediately upon publication, via e-mail, as a PDF document.  So, subscribers now have several choices:

  • GET IT BY MAIL.  We've been mailing it for over 30 years, and we'll keep doing that.  However, except to subscribers in the U.S. and Canada, there will be a surcharge on the subscription fee (U.S. funds) sent to other countries, based upon the additional mailing costs.
  • GET IT BY FAX.  No extra charge for getting it this way for U.S. and Canadian subscribers.  All others will have a surcharge on the subscription fee (U.S. funds) based upon the additional telephone charges.
  • GET IT BY E-MAIL.  No extra charge for getting it this way for anyone in the world.  Plus, delivery is instantaneous, and we can direct it to up to two of your e-mail addresses, meaning that you can receive it at your home e-mail address over the weekend, then have it waiting in your business e-mail inbox when you arrive at work on Monday. Almost all our subscribers have chosen to get it this way now.

Let us know which way you would like to subscribe.  You can subscribe immediately, using a credit card, at the bottom of page one of this website (where a sample PDF issue from our e-mail service is posted to show you the additional information and detail subscribers receive -- in addition to getting the core information a week earlier than you can find it here), or subscribe conventionally by mailing a check (in U.S. funds please) to the address near the bottom of page one.  And be sure to specify which way you want to receive it.  If you are outside the U.S. or Canada and want it by regular mail or fax, please contact us before paying, to learn what the surcharge will be for you.  Again, NO surcharge is needed for e-mail delivery, which is the way most subscribers have chosen to receive it now.


 
=====================================================


We've saved some recent past commentaries which seem to us to have ongoing relevance; click here to check them out!

If you'd like to offer your own opinion, or chat about any relevant radio or music-related matter, just give us a call, or click here to e-mail us.

Our toll-free phone/fax number for those in the United States, in U.S. possessions, and those in Canada, is 800/929-5119; from elsewhere call or fax us at this United States telephone number: 503-232-9787.

If topics like those discussed on this website interest you, you might find Eric's book -- featured on another page of this website -- to be a very useful thought-starter. If you don't have it, and would like to order it at a discount, click here to go to Eric's book at Amazon.com!