Re: RE: Re: Non-comm rankings

["Dan Billings" <billings@suscom-maine.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurence Glavin" <lglavin@lycos.com>
To: <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 6:27 PM
Subject: Fwd: RE: Re: Non-comm rankings


> I observed that the
> "AC" formula consisted of a very restricted list of current and recent
> soft rock or popular selections endlessly repeated, sometime very
> close to each other.  (WCRB does that with "classical favorites").
> This is a very contrived and cynical ploy to attract people who want
> recorded material that is familiar and comforting.  WMJX-FM was
> more "succesfu;" at it (or had a better signal in downtown Boston
> offices and won that battle thereby, until GM bought 99.5.  WHOM, WZID,
> WSRS, et al may play different SELECTIONS (although I'm sure there's much
> unintentional overlap) but it's the restriced nature of the playlist and
the
> inane repetition that mark the "AC" or "Soft-rock" formula.  Oldies
> stations apparently do the same thing.  Why so many people accept this
> as mormal is troubling,

Most people listen to the radio for short periods.  During those short
periods spent listening, they want to hear the recognizable songs they like.
If they don't, they turn the dial.  That is why stations have limited
playlists of a few songs that test very well.  It doesn't make for lots of
repetition if you listen for long periods (or work there), but most people
don't listen for long.  Complaining about tight playlists is like asking
"Why does WBZ do the same news and weather every 10 minutes."  Radio is a
business, it's not art.  By the way: Top 40 stations in the glory days of AM
radio had even tighetr playlists than stations have today.

-- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine