The Infinite Dial

It's been a weighty week here on the Infinite Dial, but we haven't forgotten that Summer is also a time to re-create. So, from the bottom of my heart, I wish you a great weekend. A Double Rainbow weekend. And, if the original wasn't inspiring enough, I've given you the Auto-tune edition AND Jimmy Fallon's dead-on Neil Young cover.

You know, it's looking like it might even be a TRIPLE Rainbow.

Click here to comment on this article.

If you read the news today, what else could you think but "Oh boy"? Facebook doubled in size in one year, from 250 million to half a billion users. Netflix reported 42% year over year subscriber growth, climbing to 15 million paying users, all in the US. And Pandora announced it has passed the 60 million registration mark, also all domestic, after passing the 40 million mark only at the end of 2009.

What these three have in common, beyond their incredible growth rates, is that they are all bringing media - content - to users in new ways. Facebook of course is simply a whole new form of entertainment-media for people. Pandora is, at its core, a complete re-think of radio; personalized and now increasingly mobile. And Netflix started out as a better version of the 'video store' and is rapidly morphing into the ultimate on-demand video/movie supplier.

The growth of these new-media powers makes me think of Lowry Mays' famous 2003 quote about Clear Channel: "If anyone said we were in the radio business, it wouldn't be someone from our company," said Mays. "We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well-researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our customers' products."

And while I have to mention that Clear Channel has not always lived by this creed and the company has indeed paid attention to the content and at times shown some true innovation, this answer to the 'what business are you really in' question comes to mind all too often when one looks at what passes for innovation in American commercial radio today.

A few months ago my colleague Tom Webster and I sat through a series of presentations at a meeting tagged to "The Future of Radio." What Tom saw faster than I did was that the presentations were almost entirely about sales innovations. Radio companies were setting up new 'verticals' (e.g. www.chattanoogachow.com); or helping local retailers to set up their own Web sites (rather astonishing in 2010, but hey, good for these radio companies); or of course trying to find new versions of the ubiquitous "half-off" deals like the restaurant bargains that are now so common that they're practically an FCC mandate.

Tom correctly pointed out to me that no matter how clever some of these approaches are, they miss the point. They play into the Lowry Mays model of business - we are merely in the business of trying to find new ways to take advertisers' money away from them.

What's missing from discussions of the 'future of radio', especially from American commercial radio companies, is audio innovation. These approaches are almost entirely disconnected from what the real core business is - audio information, entertainment, and service.

Per usual, we have to look at other entities to find content-based innovation, not sales-based innovation. And in most of these cases, content is leading sales. This is the way we always been taught it was supposed to work - create a great media product that people want to consume and then sell advertising around it.

Take for instance, the ever-inventive blokes at Absolute Radio in the UK, a station I have already called "The Most Innovative Radio Station in the World." They are always up to something. To capitalize on the World Cup this summer, they sent a popular comedy duo down to South Africa to create great radio. This would be the equivalent of sending perhaps Mike Myers and Dana Carvey and asking them to send entertaining reports back. Absolute promoted the podcasts with call-ins to their 'breakfast show' and the podcasts were good enough to be played on the air.

How did they do? Well, the somewhat phenomenal results can be found on Absolute's public 'behind the curtain' site. (And by the way - who in American commercial radio allows such public viewing of their business as this blog does?) The campaign essentially dominated the iTunes podcasting charts, and I know from Absolute's management that the project netted an extremely large amount of profits from an extremely satisfied client.

The biggest driver of content-based innovation in America is certainly coming from the public-radio complex. To their credit, NPR has its own blog where they publish research data and one can see the explosive growth of usage from non-broadcast sources (what is it with innovators and their openness? Hmmm.) Public radio has created wildly successful programs that increasingly seem to have disconnected from their broadcasts - to most people "This American Life" (from PRI) and "Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me" (from NPR) are really just podcasts, not broadcast shows. And note the advertiser 'support' their online and mobile efforts are getting from mainstream advertisers.

And while some commercial broadcasters in the US are indeed involved in excellent Web-based efforts (see, for instance, www.weei.com), most radio station Web sites are still brochure sites that are entirely caked over with ads, few stations are streaming anything but their over-the-air signal, and podcasting, the most natural line extension for every radio entity on the planet, remains entirely under-developed.

Instead, it just takes any kind of tour of the Web sites of American commercial stations to see that these often seldom-updated sites are not exploring hardly any kind of audio-content innovation.  As an example, every commercial broadcaster in Utah and Idaho has always known there is a significant niche for LDS music (and the stations that play it on Sundays get huge numbers, typically), and yet somehow a small start-up called "Your LDS Radio ( www.yldsr.com)" comes up highest on Google and appears to be the leader in the category, not something from a commercial broadcaster, who one would think could easily take the crown and monetize it.

And there are dozens and dozens of potential content-based solutions - involving the kind of audio magic that everyone got involved in radio for in the first place - that are literally sitting out there unproduced because instead American radio stations are barely able to fully program their over-the-air services.

So, again let me remind the industry that we are in the business of creating great radio, and hope never to be forced out of it. . The advertising tail cannot entirely wag the commercial radio dog. Instead, somehow we need to allow a thousand seeds of content-based radio to blossom. If we go back to creating compelling audio entertainment and information first, we won't need all the sales-based innovation that is currently the focus of the American commercial radio industry.

Click here to comment on this article.

We recently got the Edison Research music test for a client in a distant part of the world back. And one of the always interesting aspects of seeing music research from around the world is how universal some hits are - and aren't, in some cases. It's always fascinating to find the place on the map where "Mony Mony," "Maybe I'm Amazed," and "December 1963 (Oh What A Night)" barely register with listeners.

So I took a look at the top 100 for this particular station and divided it into three tiers, with an eye toward seeing just how worldwide the worldwide hits were:

Songs That Usually Would Be Big American Testers: There was 38% overlap. These are the "Every Breath You Take" and "Stand By Me"-type mainstays that are as unavoidable in this territory as they are anywhere else.

Songs That Were Hits Here, But Are Not Reliable American Testers: Almost as big a piece, 34% of the top 100 were songs that would generally be recognized, but not preferred by a similar American audience. But there are places in the world where people don't know they're not supposed to like "Mandy" by Barry Manilow.

Songs That Don't Exist To Americans: Not necessarily local content or songs that didn't come out here. Many of these are, in fact, American songs--just not songs that were ever really hits here. They wouldn't test here and most PDs wouldn't have any reason to test them. They account for the remaining 28% of the top 100.

This, of course, is the reason that music testing is valuable. There's an equal amount of one time hits in this territory that are completely lost to time. In the U.S., time and population shifts have wiped out a lot of local hits. But anything that's not "Every Breath You Take" can still shift, and often does, every few months depending on how you play it. And there's always the moment in its lifespan where a once-reliable top-of-the-pager finally starts its journey away from all-ages ubiquity--something we'll live to see happen even for "Brown Eyed Girl" and "Every Breath You Take," if not tomorrow.

Click here to comment on this article.

In 1975, Gene Amdahl left IBM to start his own company, Amdahl Software. Amdahl felt he could compete in one area with IBM, and set out to build a better mousetrap. What he learned was that IBM was countering his sales efforts by essentially implying to his prospects that they'd be "safer" going with IBM than with some fly-by-nighter like Amdahl. Amdahl coined a term for IBM's tactics: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt - better known as FUD. When you can't compete on price or quality, FUD is your only option.

FUD is alive and well today, and equally as dangerous for the radio industry as it was for Amdahl's software venture. FUD occurs when our attention is diverted from the prize, from the main thrust of your strategy, by shadows, intimations and rhetoric. Here is the latest example, in the form of Harker Research's claim that PPM has cost the radio industry seven billion dollars.

In the search engine optimization world, they call these sorts of posts "link bait"; outrageous and calculated to drive publicity and ultimately traffic. The more sites that link to the link bait in question, the higher the "baiter" will rank for relevant keywords. (Ask your webmaster/Internet guru about "nofollow" links, which I've employed here.)

The crux of this particular FUD is that there is a gap between what Arbitron's PPM says and what Nielsen's diary methodology says, and that this gap has cost radio seven billion dollars. That's "billion," with a B. What is certainly true over the PPM years is that radio has declined about 6 billion dollars, and that PPM is one of many variables in play during that span. Ask yourself this, however: how has print done over that same span? Yellow Pages? Classifieds? Billboards? Direct Mail? Does PPM have anything to do with any of that?

More troublingly, this is a time when radio looks to those who provide it with valuable inputs like research and consultation for guidance, truth and to shine a light for the industry. This particular FUD was cooked up as a "back of the envelope" calculation. Yet, it could so easily be proven or disproven with actual existing data. How have radio's fortunes fared in the Nielsen diary markets? Are they flat? Up? Or are they, as in the PPM markets, also down considerably? This is a company with "research" in its very name; yet, in a time where the radio industry needs cold hard facts the most, Harker Research has turned its back on truth in favor of FUD.

Obviously the authors of this FUD know that some people want to believe this is true, because it's a convenient untruth, and that it will thus linger around as a canard, a nagging doubt, and a dangerous distraction. In short, pure unmitigated FUD. Let's work to make PPM the best it can be, of course. But let's all keep our eyes on the prize: content innovation, sales innovation and relationships. Nothing else matters.

Click here to comment on this article.

After more than three years of our railing against the hardsell PSAs, fill music, and even occasional silences that punctuate the Web-only stopsets of streaming radio, more people are finally starting to express similar concerns, as evidenced by last Saturday's Conclave session on station streaming.

Of course, as with the problem of programmers not listening to their own radio station on its terrestrial feed, knowing there's an issue and knowing what to do about it are two different things. You would think that with the work that some major groups have done in improving the creative of their sponsors that there would be some in-house resource for the streams. But until then, may we suggest . . .

"Chickenman"!

It's still funny (to me, anyway). Creator Dick Orkin's skewed sense of humor is still all over radio, thanks to the ubiquitous Regional Help Wanted spots. And anything is better than a PSA reminding you that your kids are in mortal peril three times an hour on what was supposed to be your stress-free, refreshing at work choice.

Okay, now some equal time: At Conclave, I actually had somebody tell me that their mother had liked the ambient music that used to run as fill on KLOS Los Angeles. And a few weeks ago, I had a listener of a Gospel station in Atlanta e-mail me to ask where she could hunt down that rappin' Scruff McGruff PSA--having seemingly Googled one of my many jibes about it. But imagine how many calls the Great White-Winged Warrior would generate!

Click here to comment on this article.

Courtesy of Podcasting News comes this announcement that Podcasting community/platform Blubrry has seen its advertising revenues jump by 31% this past quarter. Todd Cochrane, the CEO of Blubrry and its parent company RawVoice, has been plugging away at monetizing podcasting since 2005, and has managed to survive and thrive, even as most of the early podcasting plays have long since faded.

Cochrane notes on his blog that quality - and quantity - have been the keys to their success, with over 5,500 shows available at Blubrry alone (they operate a few additional, smaller networks) for advertising placements. While he also is quick to talk about their multi-platform distribution strategy, it's that big number - 5,500 - that I want to point out here. That's not only a lot of raw inventory, it's also essentially a portfolio strategy, for you armchair investors out there. With a number like that, the chances are high that no matter what advertiser they call on, or what agency they talk to, they have a number of suitable podcasts to offer them in a package. Quantity does matter.

The lesson for broadcasters is pretty clear. You may not approach RawVoice's millions of avails for your own podcasting efforts, but in your local community your goal should not be to just podcast your morning show, but to create a portfolio of downloadable content - something for everyone - which you can use either for a reach buy or something more targeted. You may not have the resources in house to produce all that content, but hey - neither does RawVoice. You just have to provide a platform for interested folks in your community to add their own voices, with your station providing the hosting and acting as sales reps for the whole shebang. Some of your portfolio might be your original content, some of it might be recordings of local town council meetings, and some of it might be shows about local high school sports, local restaurants and local music - all the stuff that you might not put on the air but still engages passionate pockets of your audience.

Any one of these is a hobby. Put them all together? You got a business.

And, for my friends in commercial radio, there is no reason why you can't fill the role here of a public broadcaster. On the web, you have every bit as much of a right to leave deeper local footprints as anyone else, and with the amount of syndicated content on local public radio stations, perhaps more of an opportunity to get there. And for our public radio readers, offering targeted vehicles for underwriting and sponsorships opens up not only some creative ways to serve the community, but some creative revenue opportunities as well. The key, for both entities, is to learn from the success of RawVoice and don't think about home runs. Think about singles. Lots of them.

Click here to comment on this article.

My Edison colleague Tom Webster will probably find plenty of takers for his assertion that "the Internet as a medium is actually better suited to music discovery than radio anyway." And I don't disagree that radio could do a much better job of using its Websites to compete with YouTube, Vevo, and other music discovery choices.

But if I were radio, I wouldn't give up the on-air battle just yet. Even as an industry person with access to music, I still discover music all the time over-the-air. WXRK (92.3 Now) New York rushed Eminem & Rihanna's "Love The Way You Lie"--easily one of the most talked-about songs of the summer--on to the air before I got access to it anywhere else. Crosstown WRXP was the first place I heard OneEskimO's "Kandi," a song that I'm ashamed to say had been at arm's length on my desk for weeks.

And I still have a lot of over-the-air destinations for music discovery, particularly now that I have streaming radio on-the-go: Juice FM Liverpool and FM 107.9 Oxford, U.K., will play more songs that I haven't heard than their more recurrent UK Top 40 counterparts. Hungary's M2 Petofi is a reliable showcase for the hipper records that get European pop airplay but rarely make it to any U.S. radio besides the handful of true-Alternative outlets. Similarly, Tom Leykis' online indie rocker, New Normal Music, sold me at least four songs in the hour I listened last week.

On the Top 40 side, there are a handful of stations I can count on from KLJT (The Breeze) Tyler, Texas, to WKSE (Kiss FM) Buffalo, N.Y., that won't necessarily give me my first listen to a song, but will be the first place I hear it in a radio context and remember what it sounds like. Almost any European or Australian Oldies/Greatest Hits/Classic Hits station can send me looking for a song; so can a half hour with non-comm Oldies treasure trove WGVU-AM Grand Rapids, Mich.

Even though I earmark a few hours a week for catching up on music and searching it out, there's still something very different about having a song or two put in front of you in the context of other songs you already know and like. Those songs make more of a lasting impression--as opposed to plowing through a pile (or cyberpile) of unfamiliar product.

This morning, the new Usher single, "DJ Got Us Fallin' In Love," went to radio. I did manage to find it posted online when I first heard about it a few weeks ago. Doesn't mean that hearing it on the radio this weekend will be anticlimactic. It's almost like the difference between watching the trailer and seeing the movie.

Again, I'm all in favor of radio offering something more robust than a handful of videos on its Website. But fighting for the music discovery image on-air would reinforce the value of anything you could offer on your Website (just as the Website could eventually bolster any on-air discovery claims). So what could radio do?

For starters, it could actually start talking about music discovery and recommendations instead of just "new music." As much as I've heard those terms bandied about, I don't hear it on the air in conjunction with new music. And I guarantee that for 90% of the people hearing the new Usher this weekend, radio can still credibly claim responsibility for discovery.

And, as has been previously suggested, it could also co-opt listeners and let them be the ones making recommendations on-air. If listeners are going to think they found everything first themselves anyway, using them in your new music stagers kind of allows radio and listeners to share the credit.

Finally, every so often, about the time a song goes No. 1, I'd put listeners on the air to talk about where they were when they heard the song on the radio for the first time. Many people never think of it in those terms like radio people do. But in August, when "California Gurls" is either officially set (or upset) as this year's summer song, there will be enough people who do have memories associated with it to get a great morning show bit.

Click here to comment on this article.

It's only 2 p.m. on Friday, but it's already been a pretty good holiday weekend in terms of the number of format changes in significant markets: Clear Channel has flipped '90s Alternative WRXS Columbus, Ohio, to '90s-based Gen-X radio and Active KYRK New Orleans to Classic Rock as "The Brew." Univision has installed Latin Urban "La Kalle" at KRGT Las Vegas, in case you were wondering if that format had outlived the regggaeton boom. And Atlantic City gets a dance/rhythmic outlet this evening when WJSE Atlantic City, N.J., drops Alternative to become WWAC (Wild 102.7).

But three of the most publicized format changes of the weekend are not taking place on terrestrial radio. Early this morning, Buckley unveiled a New York-targeted Country stream, WOR Country (The Elephant); their announcement of the pending station prompted the owners of KKGO (Go Country 105) Los Angeles to launch a similar New York-targeted stream, due to arrive tomorrow morning. And Talk host Tom Leykis has launched Indie rocker New Normal Music--promising music from only the last 12 months.

So despite Leykis' protestations on New Normal's Website that his stream shouldn't be compared to anything as mundane as radio, it is interesting to see Webcasters (even those with connections to terrestrial radio) opting to launch on what has traditionally been radio's biggest format change holiday. Then again, part of what made July 4 such a big changeover date was the promotional opportunities it represented. So how long do we have before somebody flies a banner over the beach telling listeners to tune their smartphone to the new pureplay?

Click here to comment on this article.

One of the recurring themes we have seen in our annual research series with Arbitron is the continuing erosion of radio's image for music discovery. Certainly, radio has ceded this territory to the Internet - but as tempting as it may be to dwell on the negative, the fact is that the Internet as a medium is actually better suited to music discovery than radio anyway. This isn't a knock on radio as much as it is a recognition that the various cognitive activities that music discovery and appreciation engages are best served by the combination of audio stimulus, search, context and serendipity that only the Internet can provide.

Still, while the Internet may have wrested this crown from radio, it isn't a zero-sum game. After all, radio stations have websites too, right? In fact, the interactive capabilities of the Internet give ambitious radio stations more (and more powerful) tools than ever to foster music discovery. Today, there is no better example of this than NPR's music initiatives. In recent weeks, NPR has released a number of new music initiatives, and commercial radio would do well to follow their lead.

NPR recently released an NPR Music app for the Apple iPhone/iPad ecosystem that basically packages up all of their original performances, interviews and other artist information that they already had sitting in the can. This app, however, is but a taste of the significant web presence NPR has built at their online portal for NPR Music. There was certainly a time when "NPR Music" might have conjured up images of classical, jazz or folk music, but one look at the NPR Music website tells you that their goals are a bit more ambitious than that. NPR's "Listener Top 10" reads like the playlist at a college radio station, and the post itself is designed to encourage interaction, debate and ultimately engagement.

Music discovery matters - it's what makes music radio important, instead of simply a utility. NPR has boldly stepped into what has been a vacuum for radio on the web and provided a glimpse of one possible future. What's your take?

Click here to comment on this article.

Some wackiness I've encountered over the years in helping radio stations put together music tests:

Stations that don't want to test some (or all) of their powers: "We're going to play 'Sweet Home Alabama' anyway. So why test it?" Usually there's just a perennial song or two at stake here, but there have been stations that decided to sit out the entire front page from the previous test to make more room for other songs.

There are a few problems here: managing the songs you're playing, particularly the ones you're powering, is just as significant a reason for doing a music test as finding new ones. Even "Sweet Home Alabama" burns. And any song of a slightly lesser magnitude can certainly fluctuate enough between tests to rate being monitored as often as possible.

Beyond that, not testing the Mount Rushmore hits of a format lowers the average score--thus distorting some stations' interpretation of what a playable score is. In this scenario, there have generally been more wacky titles tested and some of them appear to be within shooting distance of playability. But even those middling numbers are an optical illusion.

The flip side of this is the stations that don't want to test the titles that barely made the cut last time--again, to make room for more songs. Generally those are the songs most impacted by airplay -- either being back on the radio gives them a boost the second time or, just as often, they don't stand up to six months (or a year, or two years) of airplay.

Some of this discussion may seem quaint -- a holdover from a time when stations did three music tests a year and more closely scrutinized every song, as in the days before Bob- and Jack-FM opened programmers up to offering more variety. But 2010 is a year when stations are indeed doing more music testing than a year ago and many of them have been letting that library sit for a while at a time when tastes are shifting radically. So it's never possible to ask too many questions, even about the perennials.

Click here to comment on this article.

As I have reported in the past, the exchange of ideas and innovation between American and European radio has long since switched course, and we Americans now have more to learn from our counterparts across the sea than they from us (alas).

Over the next several days I'll mention a variety of things. Today -- I'll go with a fascinating little tidbit I learned during a recent visit.

One radio station had hired a very high profile television comedian as their morning man. He got off to a very poor start, and there were calls to fire him, as he just couldn't adapt to the new medium. But the management at this station had a better idea -- they pre-tape almost everything. Instead of him attempting to run the show live, they create a 'faux live' experience, cut out anything that doesn't work, and re-wrap the show in a clean tight package. Since making this change, the station has risen extensively in mornings and this show is now usually number one.

This seems so blazingly obvious and yet is so counter to typical radio wisdom. Go to any panel about radio morning shows and everyone will say; "Live! Always Live! That's what makes it exciting!"

And yet we do somehow manage to consume taped content in other media.

If this is not the answer, it is an answer for your morning show. Could they create more great material in advance, edit it and make it sound great, and thus take the pressure off for when they actually are live?

Click here to comment on this article.

Last year I wrote a piece called "Radio's Looming Crisis Is Not Digital," in which I made the point that what radio really needed to focus on in the coming months and years was not their digital strategy, but their human resources strategy. Digital strategies are crafted by people, and having a great digital strategy means hiring the best and creating attractive environments in which to work.

You cannot control what Apple does, or what mobile phone manufacturers to, or the price of broadband, or what car makers do or even what listeners do. All you can control is what you do. When radio does things like this, and this, it sends a clear message to would-be talent, both on-air and off, that radio is not a particularly good career choice. Do I know the full details of what happened in those two situations? No, but it really doesn't matter. The story of those two situations is that radio is a crappy business, full-stop. It doesn't need to be. It's time for management to wake up and realize that in the age of social media, you can't control the "spin," or the story. You can only control what you do, and how you treat people. Your format is not an asset. Your music doesn't belong to you, and is worth less and less everyday. All you are, is your people.

Click here to comment on this article.

Is there a connection between songs that endure with radio listeners and the years that they're released?

I've been thinking about this because the syndicator of "American Top 40" has been working up to its 40th anniversary (on July 4) by sending out daily e-mails, one for each year, featuring Billboard's top 10 songs of the year.

So here's 1983, an incredible comeback year for CHR.

1 - Police, "Every Breath You Take" -- Perhaps the most-enduring record of its time at AC, Greatest Hits, and Classic Rock formats. Would still test at Hot AC, if most weren't finally moving away from the '80s.
2 - Irene Cara, "Flashdance (What A Feeling)" -- Still tests at AC, Greatest Hits;
3 - Michael Jackson, "Billie Jean" -- Never fell off the grid completely during his years of exile from radio, but it's bigger than ever posthumously. You'll hear it at least three times this Friday on the anniversary of his death.
4 - Men At Work, "Down Under" -- Endures at AC, now starting to get played at Greatest Hits.
5 - Bonnie Tyler, "Total Eclipse Of The Heart" -- Still playable at AC.
6 - Hall & Oates, "Maneater" -- 1982 really, but Billboard was on a December-November schedule. Still played at AC, Greatest Hits.
7 - Lionel Richie, "All Night Long (All Night)" -- Playable sometimes for AC. Might get a little help from being part of the new Enrique Iglesias song, "I Like It."
8 - Michael Jackson, "Beat It" -- Hadn't endured like "Billie Jean," but back now.
9 - Laura Branigan, "Gloria" - Spotty. Tests in at AC or Greatest Hits occasionally.
10 - Kenny Rogers & Dolly Parton, "Islands In The Stream" -- The first truly lost song in the top 10. Not even an automatic for Classic Country.

That's a pretty good batting average, and that top 10 doesn't even include the Eurythmics' "Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of This)," which matches the Police for durability, or Cyndi Lauper's "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun."

Now consider the not so golden year of 1988, when Top 40 was increasingly challenged by Urban and Rhythmic Top 40:

1 - George Michael, "Faith" -- No "Every Breath You Take," but still does OK at AC, Greatest Hits
2 - INXS, "Need You Tonight" -- OK at those formats and the one playable INXS at Classic Rock. Has evaporated at Hot AC as the '80s are phased out there.
3 - George Harrison, "Got My Mind Set On You" -- A seeming gimme for Greatest Hits stations trying to move into the '80s, but rarely a hit.
4 - Rick Astley, "Never Gonna Give You Up" -- Like "Together Forever," still gets some AC airplay.
5 - Guns 'N' Roses, "Sweet Child O' Mine" -- Still a smash at Classic Rock, a signature for Bob- and Jack-FMs and would still test for any Adult Top 40 that was comfortable including it.
6 - Whitney Houston, "So Emotional" -- Exciting at the time, lost now.
7 - Belinda Carlisle, "Heaven Is A Place On Earth" -- A sentimental fave for a lot of Greatest Hits PDs, but not a reliable tester.
8 - Tiffany, "Could've Been" -- Never returned to the radio after recurrent, particularly after the follow-up project faded.
9 - Breathe, "Hands To Heaven" -- Another song that has mostly disappeared.
10 - Steve Winwood, "Roll With It"--Even "Higher Love," one of the great common denominator records of that era doesn't test that well these days.

It's worth noting that if you tried this exercise for 1987, the two most enduring records would be "Livin' On A Prayer" and "Here I Go Again." In other words, the three best records from those years were the three that most challenged the boundaries of the Top 40 format. And when Top 40 found more than three hair band records to play, it wasn't necessarily a good thing.

I'll take a more empirical look at this some other time. But it makes sense at first blush that there would be so many enduring songs from the class of 1983. Rock radio was faltering. Urban Cowboy had finally passed. Adults were returning to Top 40 (as, for that matter, were teens). And there was, of course, the newly influential MTV to help reinforce all these songs.(Even though "Sweet Home Alabama" and "Brown Eyed Girl" do just fine without having had a video, it would be interesting now to look at the most played '80s gold and see how many were thought of as hit videos at the time.)

All of those things add up to a lot of traffic for the format. Songs can overcome a weak year for their home format or not being heard at the time at all -- e.g., "What I Like About You." But since so much of an oldie's endurance is based on the shared experience, it makes sense that an experience that more people shared would linger more.

Click here to comment on this article.

First of all, don't get too excited about the press reports that Apple has applied for a patent to include HD radio technology in future iPods and iPhones. As iN3 Partners' Robert Unmacht points out, "This in no way means they will do it. Tech companies file for many things to protect themselves and never use it. There are power issues (the chip is a bit of a hog), space issues, and always cost issues."

But do ask yourself, what would broadcasters do if HD radio were available on the iPhone (or iPod or iPad)?

Many broadcasters think that being on the iPhone (or any smart phone) will automatically bring them greater engagement from younger listeners, simply by being on their platform of choice. But are broadcasters willing or prepared to engage with younger listeners? Are they going to offer them a second format choice for current music? Or will they continue to hope that 12-24s make do with two Top 40s and other formats (particularly Rock and Country) that play youth-oriented music sparingly?

Are broadcasters' HD multicast channels going to be ready for their close-up? It makes sense that we've moved from throwaway locally programmed channels to national ones. But many of those national stations are repurposed content and very few truly take advantage of the "WLS/CKLW national radio station for our times" potential of having a national radio station. So far, the only way to get a broadcaster to show a lot of interest in their multicast channel is to give them a translator (and thus a new FM frequency in the market) to relay it to.

Can multicast channels be rethought to provide the sort of services that smart phone users are looking for? Some have long thought that HD radio's ultimate function would be as a data provider. Can multicast channels, if available on a smart phone, be used to protect radio's current traffic and weather franchises?

Finally, are broadcasters going to take any more advantage of being on an iPhone (or any other phone) than they do of being available on the iPod Nano? Radio was very excited about being allowed a place on an iPod of any sort. But it was hard, at least at the outset, to find broadcasters who had engaged with radio on the Nano in any way (including using it much themselves). And have you heard anything about the Nano or song tagging in the last six months?

Click here to comment on this article.

Pricewaterhouse Coopers says terrestrial radio advertising in North America will "return to positive growth" in 2010, boosted by political and rebounding auto ads in the U.S. PWC projects a 3.5 percent compound annual growth rate for terrestrial radio through 2014, bringing spending up to $18.5 billion.

Without doubt, after a year like last year, every business in every industry is just happy to be up at all. But if this projection is correct (and try to find me a projection from 2006 or 2007 that predicted 2009 radio revenues would be down 35% from 2007 levels), that means that radio won't be back to its 2007 level for a decade.

David Field from Entercom, who has shown great leadership for radio on this issue, has pointed out at industry meetings that even if radio grew at 10% this year -- it will still be one of the worst years ever.

I only caution the industry to bear in mind that everything is not, in fact, coming up rosy. We must work together, hard and strong, to merely bring the American radio industry back to the 'good old days' levels of 2007.

Click here to comment on this article.