-
Is Movin' Better Than Jammin'?
May 16, 2006
Have an opinion? Add your comment below. -
Today's Radio Often Competes By Being Concept-Oriented Without Personalities
Several years ago, Steve Rivers developed a format called "Jammin' Oldies." It was an oldies-based format whose music was, in most markets, better than 80% urban. Most of the jocks were not African-American, even though the music was, and the ratings results of the new format were nothing short of phenomenal. In many major markets, including San Francisco and Washington D.C., the format did way better than expected. The problem, however, was that the format had a "short shelf life." The reasons were many and varied, but the most common excuse given was that "Jammin' Oldies" burned through the songs that everybody loved, remembered, and wanted to hear ... at least once. By the time they were scheduling the second layer of songs and repeating some of the ones they first played, they went from being a P-1 to a P-4. Was it a good idea? Depends on who you ask. Regardless of your thoughts on the subject, however, the format is back again -- this time with a different name.
In the midst of the current spring Arbitron sweeps is probably as good a time as any to look at the latest format fad. It was developed by consultant Alan Burns, who calls it "Movin'." "Movin'" has already found a home in Seattle on Sandusky's former adult Top-40 station, KLSY (Mix-92.5). It's now been renamed KQMV, and will exist as a heavily female-targeted, rhythmic AC format which is designed to attract those listeners who grew up with (or should have grown up with) R&B.
The music is heavily R&B and even has some select rap cuts, with a few compatible titles such as Pretty Poison, Next and Inner Circle. Much like Jack, they are currently jockless; also similar to Jack, it will be interesting to see what type of talent they will choose (when and if they decide to put talent on the air, that is).
First off, you've got to wonder what "Movin'" can do to differentiate and distinguish itself from the rest of the format-similar stations (KUBE, for example) in the market. Bear in mind there is a "Jack" formatted station in the market, KJAQ, that dipped in the recent ratings sweeps following a strong debut. The other obvious question is, "Can Seattle support two format-similar, oldies-based music stations?"
Chances are, if you dial around (especially after ten o'clock), you will hear a monument to sameness with most of the music stations in continuous music sweeps, with little content and virtually all the air-talent simply segueing and reading liner cards. While there are probably a great many people to blame for this mess, the reality is that we should probably just blame ourselves. We should blame ourselves if this format succeeds because before it launched there was an opportunity to do an urban format that might have prevented (or at least partially plugged) the hole their research said exists.
Obviously, a lot of research has been done in the market and, based on the results of that research, this station decided to go ahead and take a chance with "Movin." But let's say, based on research, they decide the audience they're targeting wants minimum talk. Until they find a suitable morning show, they may also decide that a morning musical jukebox might force some 25-49 fickle female fingers at work to seek out their frequency. In some cases, the decision could come from a corporate force from afar, who might also decide that middays and nights could be voice-tracked permanently.
But wait, so far in the early stages of the new format's development, no programming decisions have been made that permanently dictate, "Just run the liners and don't say anything else." There are those format pundits (and I'm among them) who claim, regardless of what we say we want, what we really want are jocks who can be distinct, compelling or even funny while keeping talk to a minimum. That means air-talent who can personalize the weather, kid with callers, and do a bunch of little things which won't take up a lot of time and that can be done meaningfully, especially in drivetime.
Unfortunately, instead of following the path of creativity, or looking for an edge, many programmers and consultants (not necessarily those who are guiding "Movin'," keep in mind) are searching for solutions and have allowed themselves to be led by a fear of being different and so they reduced talk to absolute minimums. According to recent research results from focus groups to listeners' panels, the respondents polled all felt that stations all sound alike and they perceive radio as boring. As a result, time-spent-listening keeps dropping. Can we extend TSL and attract new cume by changing? Well, to borrow a line or two from the airlines, as close as three months out, we have to check availability - in this case, the availability of information. The solution rests with the ability to make our stations distinctive and stand out from the crowd.
Movin' Talent Development
One of the toughest -- but most effective -- ways to upgrade in any format is to improve the talent (once the decision has been made to staff the station, of course). First, you have to find the talent. Then we have to understand that talent, by its very nature, never stands still. Talent involves creativity, evolution and even some risk. Risk has now become a dirty word, especially following the recent Star and Buc Wild incident in New York and the ensuing response from various sources. But we can channel the risk-taking, guide it, foster it, or thwart it. But especially these days, it must be controlled.
Another of the problems in radio lately is that a lot of program-directors have been put in place who have little or no experience in managing or developing major talent for a format such as this. In many cases, these former music schedulers or air-talents have been placed in that position by the consultant. In the beginning they try to avoid being placed in situations where they even have to deal with talent. In my opinion, an experienced program director should be hired, in part, for their ability to work with talent. Because, at some point, they are going to have to guide and develop talent with frequent, regular feedback. They're going to have to act as coach and psychiatrist. Should we expect more from our air-talent than liner cards readers? Absolutely. Every jock, including weekenders and part-timers, should be required to do daily show prep. The question, as always, is how much show prep? And while there is no set answer, the best programming minds say that they must do enough daily show prep so that they have more new things of substance to say that he/she can use in each day's show. Even so-called "continuous music" stations can benefit from air-talent who do effective, localized daily show prep and make emotional contact with the audience.
Another major problem that has to be addressed in the upgrading or changeover process has to do with the frequency of the critiquing sessions. They can't occur only when the jock is in trouble. Often, by that time it may be too late -- for both of you. As a consultant, what I try to do is observe each situation and treat it accordingly. The most common problems I have found are jocks that concentrate on simply reading the liners, brevity and other mechanical aspects. This has to immediately be corrected. I also try to spot talent on the way up and tell the program director about someone I feel is really talented and advise them to make certain that talent is nurtured, encouraged and rewarded.
Assessing a station's talent level should be one of the first steps in determining the style or approach "Movin'" must use if and when they decide to add air-talent. They're going to need personalities that are mature, but hip. Chances are they will have talent at significantly different levels. They need to be coached and improved accordingly. It is important to understand that regardless of how we personally feel about this aspect of our job, it must be done! The fact is that few, if any, individuals or teams ever become champions on their own without good coaching. If students could learn from books alone, there would be no need for teachers.
Finally, in response to some e-mails I've received lately from programmers in all size markets, it's obvious they are curious about start-up formats like these.
We're going to follow the progress of "Movin'" and see what develops. Even if they get the music right, long-term ratings success still depends on what happens between the records. And since this is not just a new format, but an entirely new concept, there are no jocks who are already in place at another market they can simply shift. Then, pre-supposing they can find the air-talent, they must remember they are performers who need to know that even though they are part of a new, experimental format that management is there to support them, offer them ideas and guidance and provide boundaries so they will know just how far to stretch the envelope.
If stations want extraordinary ratings, they have to do extraordinary things, even if they only have ordinary people. A little work in the right areas can make them sound extraordinary. Even if they find the perfect playlist, if the rest of the station is average, they can expect average results.
Arbitron numbers are prone to fluctuations and wobbles, and even the best stations will suffer through or benefit from an unusually strong or weak book or trend on occasion. By changing and "movin'," does this station put itself in a better position to attract new cume or extend their time-spent-listening? Is "Movin'" better than "Jammin'"? These are questions only time and a three-book Arbitron trend can answer.
Word.
-
-