"To Achieve Music Variety, You Must Understand Music Variety"
In each newsletter, we present a guest article from one of our MusicMaster ProTeam consultants. This month, Tracy Johnson of Tracy Johnson Media Group talks about the concept of music variety. Listener feedback about variety is often misinterpreted, while remedies to increase variety can put the station even farther off the mark. In this article, Tracy explains where programmers can go wrong, and then presents better ways to promote variety through alternating clocks.
Perhaps the most misunderstood programming concept for music-based formats is defining what music variety really is. We think we understand it, but our definition of the term often has as many applications as there are programmers.
Radio stations spend tens of thousands of dollars on research to find out what listeners want. We ask them if they would like their favorite station to play more variety. Overwhelmingly, listeners respond saying they do indeed want “more music variety”.
So, to justify the cost of the research, programmers are tasked to give the audience what they ask for. We interpret the research literally, but decisions made in a vacuum are dangerous.
The common response is to add more titles to the library. Or expand the eras to be deeper. Perhaps we stretch the music genres in the music mix. Or (gasp), all of the above.
Then, we run endless messages on the air and in external marketing campaigns proudly proclaiming that we are the station for the most music variety or the best mix of music. This is often tagged with “so you can listen longer” or “that everyone can agree on”.
The problem is that we misunderstand and mis-apply the meaning of music variety. In almost every competitive situation with a music variety issue, the solution was not to add more songs. In fact, the remedy is often to reduce the playlist.
As Kevin Cassidy, President/CEO of Strategic Solutions Research says: “Music variety is not the opposite of repetition. If you achieve variety, does it lower repetition? The answer is “no”. In fact, quite often achieving actual music variety on the air leads to very poor results.”
It’s clear that listeners say they want music variety. But what do they mean? Do they define it the way we think they do? The way we do? The way we’d like them to?
No.
Common Music Variety Mistakes
In the absence of research (or sometimes even with it, and often because of it), programmers over-react to a weak ratings period by assuming their music is off target.
Time spent listening decreases, and the knee-jerk reaction is that the library is burned, or “we’re not offering enough variety”. And they start messing with the library. Uh-oh.
The opposite is more likely. Listeners don’t get tired of their favorite songs. They tire (and tune out) of songs they don’t like, or songs that don’t inspire or interest them.
Depending on format, programmers typically respond to a perceived music variety issue by:
-
Adding more songs to the library, usually songs that are weaker testing and far less popular. Otherwise, they would already be on the air, right? So when you add depth to the library to achieve variety, you end up with a bunch of bad songs along with listener’s favorites. Then what happens to TSL?
- Broaden the range of music genres on the air, going wider into secondary and tertiary sounds that are less popular than the core desires. The further a station strays from the essential core sound of the station, the more vulnerable it becomes. Your audience may say they like many types of music, and it may be true. But they have a button on the dial to satisfy those tastes. You can give them all those genres on one station, but you’ll have a far smaller audience, and very few fans.
- Expanding the era of songs allowed on the air, on the theory that those “oldies” have more appeal than they actually have. This is a common mistake, usually made because the programming team doesn’t take into account that new listeners enter the target demographic. They have a limited point of reference, and far less affinity, for songs in an era that once made up the gold library.
-
Introducing more categories for new music, believing that the audience has a higher tolerance for unfamiliar music than they actually have.
Reality Check
In nearly every case, when stations broaden the playlist, moment-to-moment appeal is compromised. Adding weaker titles weakens the sound of the station right now. In this quarter-hour.
And that is how the audience uses the radio when choosing a music station: right now.
The problem is that listeners don’t know how to speak programming language. They are unable to put their comments into terms that can be applied literally. We must interpret their comments, and that can be tricky.
When they complain about repetition or lack of variety, they usually mean:
- You play too many songs I don’t like. (Nobody complains about hearing their favorite songs).
- You play weird music that I don’t understand. (One spin of that clunker from the wrong genre is one spin too many).
- Everything you play sounds the same. (Repetition in sound is fatiguing, and to a casual listener, often sounds like the exact same song.)
- It’s monotonous and not very interesting. (Are you managing music flow so the station has a consistent, yet diverse range, like a pendulum?)
- You play the same 10 songs over and over (To them, maybe you do. Have you checked into your horizontal and daypart rotations? Do your clocks need to be adjusted?)
Alternate Clocks
Since listeners are creatures of habit, they typically listen to the radio at about the same times each day. Of course, you know it’s important to insure that songs rotate through different hours each day.
But there’s another way to promote variety to your audience.
Multiple format clocks that rotate through hours are easy to create. Changing the category position from day to day increases the chances that habitual listeners will hear different songs when they tune in. Just moving that tertiary “oh wow” gold song by 3-4 music positions from day to day will expose more of your library, expanding perceived variety.
Here’s how to set up alternate clocks:
Once a master clock is perfected, and you’re happy with the music flow, duplicate the clock.
Then, maintaining the same song sequencing, shift the categories by 2 or 3 (or 4) positions. You may need to adjust the clock slightly to accommodate stop sets, or insure that power category songs fall in certain positions. And you will have to make some tweaks at the end of the hour, when the clock turns over into the next alternate clock.
Once the second clock is fine-tuned, duplicate it and follow the same process.
How many clocks do you need? At least two, but consider five clocks so the song sequence in the same hour is different each weekday (Monday through Friday).
This practice is a good idea for any music station, but the tighter your playlist (CHR, for instance) the more important it is to offer multiple clocks. Doing so adds variety to a limited playlist and can expand your brand’s appeal without adding weaker music.
Conclusion
Music variety is an important image to associate with. But remember that variety is a perception, not a logical, factual comparison.
Stations spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to become the variety leader. Managers pressure programmers to add more songs to the library trying to satisfy complaints and discover the magic formula that unlocks massive time spent listening.
The problem is, we often put the emphasis on the wrong syllable. Achieving positive perceptions for music variety is a cumulative exercise, not a tactic with a cause and effect.
Want more advice like this? Read more about Tracy and his services on our
ProTeam page or on Tracy's website:
TJohnsonMediaGroup.com. Or contact Tracy directly at (858) 472-3546 or Tracy@TJohnsonMediaGroup.com.