The importance of national radio airplay?

[darreno27]

What exactly is the process in getting a song within national airplay? Let's say making it on the top 40 airplay on the pop, country, hip hop, or pop/country stations. Do you think national airplay is an almost essential feature in order to make it "big?" (platinum albums).

 

I was reading about Savage Garden (don't know why - just came across it.). They basically didn't tour at all in the beginning. They were just a duo pair that created songs in a studio and luckily a record company signed them - and luckily one of their songs got national airplay. A few of their songs snagged the Australian airplay with huge success and then eventually went over to the UK and the states. It was then they started touring with a band.

 

How much more of an influence is national radio airplay compared to opening up for an already "successful" band during a national tour?

 

Note: This thread is purely hypothetical and my examples may not be the best. Just wondering if it is possible for a somewhat unknown artist to gain nationally airplay without touring extensively.

[BlueStrat]

If I remember correctly, Savage Garden came out in the states in 1997, which was 13 years ago, a literal lifetime in the music business. What worked 3 years ago is less likely to work now, let alone 13 years. The number of people influenced by radio compared to 1997 is miniscule.

 

Caveat: I assume you're talking rock music. Country s a whole different thing, and still operates largely as the rock industry did 20 years ago.

 

Secondly, even then, they didn't 'luckily' get radio play, they got heavily promoted by a major label record company who had much invested in them. The record company cannot guarantee a hit, of course, but they do have the clout to get a song on the radio.

 

The question today isn't can an unknown get airplay without touring. The question today is: will it do them any good? I have a friend who works for CD Baby in Portland and is working with two guys who were in separate bands in the late 90s-early 2000s who both had hit songs on the radio and are both working day jobs today.

[darreno27]

Yeah you're right - I forgot how long ago that was. No itunes then and the home studio thing really wasn't taking off like it was now......not that I really know what affects what to a certain degree.

 

That's interesting you mention the difference in genre such as country. I was watching Taylor Swift today on TV and after reading a little bit it sounds like she played out in a few Nashville acoustic cafes and such, but never really "toured" extensively to the degree some other bands do. She got noticed by a company and eventually got signed on for her song writing skills- and everything eventually took off with her first album (after touring and heavy promotion from the company, of course). It seems like country/pop now works similar to the rock scene 20 years ago to a certain degree, but what makes the country/pop scene so much different now days? Is it the audience? Please forgive me if I sound quite like noob like. I do lurk here often, but some things I still get confused with.

[Poker99]

Taylor Swift knew someone important.

[daddymack]

Getting airplay, especially for a traditional 'rock band', is nigh on impossible. True 'Top 40' doesn't really exist anymore, despite claims to the contrary.

The 'balkanization' of radio is slowly killing rock, since they want it so sub-genre specific, you can't define anything with mass appeal. Even th major label people know this is hurting them in the long run, but broadcast radio is more interested in the ARB numbers than in what the label promo people are shopping, another symptom of the decline of major labels. Pay-2-listen radio is all sub-genres, and they don't care about ARB as long as they have subscribers they can play what they want.

The concepts of defining 'success' and 'making it' are all changing, and the means to those ends are up in the air. It is the best of times, it is the worst of times...

[BlueStrat]

 

Yeah you're right - I forgot how long ago that was. No itunes then and the home studio thing really wasn't taking off like it was now......not that I really know what affects what to a certain degree. That's interesting you mention the difference in genre such as country. I was watching Taylor Swift today on TV and after reading a little bit it sounds like she played out in a few Nashville acoustic cafes and such, but never really "toured" extensively to the degree some other bands do. She got noticed by a company and eventually got signed on for her song writing skills- and everything eventually took off with her first album (after touring and heavy promotion from the company, of course). It seems like country/pop now works similar to the rock scene 20 years ago to a certain degree, but what makes the country/pop scene so much different now days? Is it the audience? Please forgive me if I sound quite like noob like. I do lurk here often, but some things I still get confused with.

 

Don't worry about sounding like a noob! This is stuff we kick around here all the time, and I hope you keep asking and keep coming around and contributing.

 

The country audience is by far a different audience. They tend to be more conservative, and less technologically sophisticated, and so are more likely to buy CDs as opposed to downloads; more likely to buy music than steal it; more likely to listen to FM radio than ipods, internet radio and mixes. I live in an area of about 500k people in a 1500 sq mi area. There are 3 FM country stations here. Contrast that with one hard rock station, one alt rock station, a classic rocks station, a dance mix station, an adult contemporary soft rock station, and an oldies station.

 

Which brings me to another difference in country music: it isn't splintered into a thousand different sub genres like rock is. People who like bluegrass and old country are just as likely to listen to Vince Gill or Miranda Lambert or Kenny Chesney or any of the ones who are currently popular. The fan base seems to be broader and more accepting of everything covered under the umbrella of country music. I know whenever there's a big time country act here, they sell out immediately.

 

Which is odd, because for all the support of the loyal fan base here, country bar bands don't do well. There are almost no venues for country bands, and the ones there are are fairly small and/or out of the way. I have no idea why this is so, but it's the way it is.

[richardmac]

That is an interesting observation, BlueStrat. And it's also true around here. You can still see a country band if you want to, but there's a handful of joins that do it compared to billions of bars with rock. It's about the same as seeing jazz, and country is WAY more popular. Strange. And it sure fits in with the whole beer drinking thing. Is it because country music is popular but not "cool?" Man, 15 years ago it was huge around here - there were line dancing clubs everywhere. The clubs went away with the fad around here...

[Scafeets]

 

.....They tend to be more conservative, and less technologically sophisticated, and so are more likely to buy CDs as opposed to downloads; more likely to buy music than steal it; more likely to listen to FM radio than ipods, internet radio and mixes.....

 

 

 

This is all true, but I just read that Japan has the highest per capita CD sales rate; and that market sure isn't "less technologically sophisticated."

So there's another dynamic at play here. Maybe it's that the Japanese culture is a little less inclined to steal? Or maybe they value the booklets and liner notes. I dunno.

 

As for radio: Country radio is just as screwed as other genres when it comes to what it take$ to have a hit. And there are fewer alternatives to radio play, since you can't reach the audience as well through alternate media. Plus, as BlueStrat points out, it's hard for non-star counry talent to get a gig -- even here in NC. At least CMT still plays music and hasn't become the {censored}hole that MTV and VH1 have devolved into.

[Matximus]

The only way to get a song on popular radio is to be incredibly lucky - I'm talking $20 million-lottery ticket lucky - or have major-league marketing muscle pushing your material. And even then - it's damn, damn, damn hard.

 

Studios market test the hell out of potential hits and they won't spend a nickel pushing something if "they don't hear a single," as the great Tom Petty once said.

 

And then radio stations do their own brutal market testing to make sure their listeners aren't changing the station every time some new or familiar song comes on. So that's two gatekeepers.

 

Then there's the consolidation of radio - the vast majority of stations are owned by one of the megacongolomerates like Clear Channel or smaller congolomerates like Infinity or something like that. You still have a number of independent stations in every market - but they're not about to take a big risk by playing untested weirdo new music that strikes their fancy. They're having a tough enough time keeping the sharks at bay.

 

So that means if a major player like CC thinks your material blows - you're rock n roll dreams are pretty much sunk. Sorry.

 

And then there's the brutal math: Depending on the station and time of day, the typical radio station plays 11 to 14 songs per hour. And every song is given heavy consideration about how many spins it is going to get per week - so a hit song or song that research has deemed a potential hit is probably getting 3 -7 spins a day. It's rotation is adjusted as stations start getting real listener feedback. But the main point is - probably 8 to 10 of those hourly spins are going to Radio Warhorses - legacy hits and more recent hits - leaving just a couple slots in the rotation per hour. The major record players release probably something like 15 records a WEEK - so every seven days, let's say, you're competing with, what, ten other songs for one of those precious slots? And every week comes a new round of challengers?

 

Forget about it.

 

There's other stuff; But the bottom line is you don't have a shot in hell in getting on the radio.

 

And I don't think any of this stuff is necessarily bad. It's a tough business. And this whole Myth that freeform radio is better than structured commercial radio is nothing but ballyhooo. People that really, really love music have sophisticated tastes, so they shouldn't be in charge of choosing what regular people want to hear. They'll choose weird, unfamiliar music that nobody wants to hear - and that's no way to run a business.

 

And Top 40 format is the best method radio stations have for making money. Freeform radio doesn't make money because people don't want to listen to it - period.

[Matximus]

Oh yeah. And radio is by far still the most powerful and important tool in breaking artists and making substantial money in the recorded music business.

 

Radio is still KING despite the MP3-ification and Youtubification and what-have you of popular music. The ability it has to reach a big captive, targetted audience is unparralled in media - that is something that has become incredibly rare and even more valuable as media fragments.

 

And, you know, that's why it may be even harder than ever to get something on the radio - the stakes are just super, super, super high. Higher than they've ever been maybe. Those few spins per hour up for grabs - while they may be getting fewer listens - have become exponentially more valuable as the internet eats away at the industry's profits.

[Pomerlaw]

Really interesting subject!

 

Believe it or not, my band got a single on major radio in my hometown (Quebec City), and also on the RNC radio network around the Quebec Province (about 5-6 alternative rock stations). Now I understand its not national (Canadian) airplay of course, and its not on high rotation, but we still got on the playlist. We play between Green Day and big bands like that, its a great feeling.

 

I think the fact our music fits the radio's style really helped, and of course there is the local factor. So its not totally impossible for a smaller band to get on big radio, in Canada at least. Don't ask me exactly how we did it, I'm just the guitarist. I was the first surprised when I heard it on air

 

If you're curious to hear the single : http://nakedgun.bandcamp.com/track/left-for-dead

[Kramerguy]

Taylor swift worked on public performance since the age of 12-13, and her parents moved her to Nashville in order to be close to the labels in her target market.

 

If you are into Rock, move to NYC, Miami, or some other hotspot that has label presence for the genre, if a major label is your goal. Not that it should be. Any major label contract you would sign today will put all the risk on you and reward on them. Only if you get lasting fame / success will you be able to avoid being bankrupted by your own career.

[Dancebass]

 

So its not totally impossible for a smaller band to get on big radio, in Canada at least. Don't ask me exactly how we did it,

 

 

I'm not trying to knock you at all by saying this but I have many Canadian buddies. Apparently there are "culture" laws of some sort that call for a percentage of music to be by Canadian artists? My friends have credited this for what they considered the "ease" of being added to mainstream radio at home vs. the U.S.

[gtrhangar]

I think it really depends on what the genre is and the target audience. For example, any band on an indie label in the emo/screamo/post-hardcore scene (and any sub-genre thereof) really doesn't get any radio play at all and has to tour their asses off 300 days a year just to almost break even. Even most late night college radio doesn't really cover that kind of stuff, let alone national...and yet there are hundreds and hundreds of bands who have reasonably successful careers doing that. But for a more commercial sounding unknown band that's got a Daughtry/Nickleback type of sound would probably want to aim for radio, but it's just so hard these days that they probably won't get it and are better off touring just as hard as the above mentioned bands to get the exposure they need. It's such a different world than it was even just 10 years ago when radio mattered more. From my perspective, it seems like a one in ten-million chance to get enough national airplay to keep you off the road.

[Pomerlaw]

 

I'm not trying to knock you at all by saying this but I have many Canadian buddies. Apparently there are "culture" laws of some sort that call for a percentage of music to be by Canadian artists? My friends have credited this for what they considered the "ease" of being added to mainstream radio at home vs. the U.S.

 

 

You are right, if I remember correctly 60% of the stuff played must be canadian content.

 

But in Quebec, its different. Radio must play 65% FRENCH music. When you are making music in english, you have to compete with all the other bands to get in the 35%...

[Dancebass]

 

You are right, if I remember correctly 60% of the stuff played must be canadian content....

 

 

WHAT!!!

 

Wow! I had no idea it was that high. That's great. I was thinking more like 5 to 10%.

 

That's a very good opportunity. Take full advantage.

[Pomerlaw]

Hmm after further research, it looks like its 35%.

 

So for us in Quebec, its actually a negative thing, but maybe it will help us for the rest of the country.

[BlueStrat]

 

Oh yeah. And radio is by far still the most powerful and important tool in breaking artists and making substantial money in the recorded music business. Radio is still KING despite the MP3-ification and Youtubification and what-have you of popular music. The ability it has to reach a big captive, targetted audience is unparralled in media - that is something that has become incredibly rare and even more valuable as media fragments. And, you know, that's why it may be even harder than ever to get something on the radio - the stakes are just super, super, super high. Higher than they've ever been maybe. Those few spins per hour up for grabs - while they may be getting fewer listens - have become exponentially more valuable as the internet eats away at the industry's profits.

 

 

 

You really think so? I can't refer to an hard stats, but I know my own kids and their friends and none of them, not one, listens to radio if they don't have to (and they almost never have to). They are age 21 to 25, as are their friends. They think it's lame and 'for old people'.

[MartinC]

My daughter(16) listens to radio a lot, but if her car had an i pod hook up, I think that would drop a lot. we just went on vacation and for a week she was hounding us to turn on the radio and find a station she liked. She got excited when a band she liked was played, so I think it's still a huge factor.

[daddymack]

Given no other choice, yes, radio is still a viable medium, but with terabyte iPods...who needs radio? Cars have CD and Mp3 players, plus some now have iPod docks...I listen to two things on the radio: Jazz (we have one of the best NPR jazz stations in the US-which isn't really saying much these days), and the news.

[BlueStrat]

 

My daughter(16) listens to radio a lot, but if her car had an i pod hook up, I think that would drop a lot. we just went on vacation and for a week she was hounding us to turn on the radio and find a station she liked. She got excited when a band she liked was played, so I think it's still a huge factor.

 

 

 

16, maybe, but after high school forget about it.

[Matximus]

There are a few different ways to make money in music. And things are changing. But if you have any hope of doing it by selling records - at the upper crust of things - you still have to get on the radio. Period. Reason Lady Gaga is a superstar is she was able to turn out hit single after hit single after hit single.

 

Radio is more important than aever.

 

Don't take my word for it - this dude handles promotions for Warner. I think it ran this week in FMBQ:

 

http://www.fmqb.com/article.asp?id=1595106

 

Ron Cerrito, SVP/Promotion, Warner Bros. Records

 

Q: Given the pronounced decrease of album sales in the physical world over the past ten years and the significant growth of digital singles, is it safe to say that hit singles are more important today to labels than ever?

 

A: Ron: Let’s face facts, iTunes created a digital singles world and we know digital singles are driven by one force…radio. The other given today is that the only thing that’s selling new artist albums is multiple singles. To truly establish an artist you have to have multiple singles which basically ignites album sales for artists of all levels, including established artists. The main force that sustains album sales passed a four to six week period is radio. You typically have your big opening sales week, then you’re down 65% in the second week, and then you decrease by 30% and so on, and before you now it, no matter who you are, you’re in the 10,000 unit range in a matter of four to six weeks. The only thing that sustains sales beyond that downward spiral is radio airplay and hit songs. It applies to Rock artists as well as Pop artists. Tours don’t do it anymore. Even the biggest artists will go on tour and people will buy tickets but steal the music.

 

You need hit songs on the radio. So the longevity of albums, which is critical to having those big two and three million blockbuster albums, is driven by airplay. The one thing that significantly drives MySpace and YouTube streams in the digital music world is radio. When a song becomes a hit at radio all of a sudden your hits and views increase exponentially.

[BlueStrat]

All that might be true, for now, but here's an article from the same month and year the one you posted was written:

 

http://media.www.bryantarchway.com/media/storage/paper1215/news/2009/11/20/Business/Radio.On.The.Same.Decline.As.Newspapers-3838197.shtml

 

Radio on the same decline as newspapers

 

By: Keith Murray, Faculty Columnist

 

Posted: 11/20/09

 

An "inside business" issue these days-and especially inside the world of marketing communication--has to be the future of terrestrial radio; this pertains to what most lay people would refer to as traditional radio, such as AM and FM broadcasting listened to, historically, in cars, tabletop sets, alarm clocks, and desk sets at work.

 

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal ran a story that reports that Clear Channel, via its parent, CC Media, reported its third quarter in a row of advertising losses in the range of about 20% each. [Hell, that's about 60% in aggregate in my book!] Clear Channel is the largest owner and operator of AM, FM and short-wave radio stations in the U.S.

 

Clearly, it is too early to say exactly what the trajectory of terrestrial radio will be like; after all, we're in the middle of a prolonged economic recession-and the decline in media advertising is affecting all media, not just radio. Nonetheless, one has to take seriously all the talk that the decline of radio has begun and might well follow newsprint into-maybe into a new reality and economic business model, if not decline and oblivion. Several independent indicators seem to support such apprehensions, including the surpassing of ad dollars directed to on-line information sources--and at an increasing rate at that! Since the "science" of tracking radio listenership-and I use the word "science" in this context very loosely-has never been seen as particularly trustworthy, one can look to other signs along the way that support the ascendancy of other media and the demise of traditional radio. Let's enumerate some of the more obvious ones.

 

First, much of radio listening has occurred in automobiles-hence the marketing use of the term, "drive time." Less and less listening to radio is happening in autos today; instead people are talking on mobile phones or electing to listen to personal audio devices such as MP3 players of one sort or another. Why would a person want to take the chance of maybe hearing their favorite song on the radio, when they could otherwise listen to a playlist of their own making in which all of the songs are their favorites?

 

More and more new vehicles are coming stocked with subscription-based satellite radio units-making obsolete the need to listen to paid commercials for up to 40% of the time in the car. [When I am forced-out of sheer boredom-to turn on terrestrial radio, I now think it odd and annoying to hear so many commercials. I ask myself "Who still really does this?"-particularly if they've ever been liberated by bring-along devices that permit listening to one's favorite music, podcasts, recorded books, etc.]

 

At home, the picture is changing as well - for the worse insofar as traditional radio is concerned-and in not-so-subtle ways. Internet radio is making in-roads into people's listening preferences-again with no or fewer commercials. Cable companies are now delivering specialty "radio" alternatives to people's homes-also with no or fewer commercials.

 

It's too early to write the obituary for terrestrial radio, but all the signs indicate that the long life we might have expected for it is not in store. Even with an economic recovery, it is likely, in my opinion, that much of the losses in radio will not be re-gained. With the loss of listeners, even if ad rates stayed the same [and they likely will not!], effective advertising cost will rise, mirroring the plight of newspaper today.

This is the case for the simple explanation that much in the way of direct and better (read, advertising-diminished, or advertising-free) listening alternatives exist. And where chance remains to listen to the "radio," other activities will continue to supplant idle time that used to be spent by individuals alone with a terrestrial radio signal source. The times have clearly changed for paper-printed newspapers [see yesterday's WSJ article by Nat Worden "Ad revenue eludes newspapers" for more bad news for newsprint] but the "signs of the times" are that radio will likely be following predictably along behind.

 

As they say in the broadcast business: stay tuned.

 

Keith Murray is a Professor of Marketing and the Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Bryant University. Be sure to visit his daily blog at www.keithmurrayonbiz.com.

© Copyright 2010 The Archway

 

Radio is going the way of the Model T. What will replace it is anyone's guess- perhaps a rejection of the corporate conglomerate entity of ClearChannel and a return to local programming, local interest and local advertising. There is a station near here (http://www.953kpnd.com/) that is run locally and does independent programming, which means you get to hear all kinds of things you won't hear on a Clear Channel station. Yes, you get classic rock and some pop stuff, but you get a lot of singer/songwriter/folkie/alt country/indie stuff too. The odd thing is, they seem to be doing quite well and have a decent sized audience. But still, I'm a little less optimistic about the future of radio in the long term. It's clearly on the way out as we know it, because as the article points out, there are just too many available options for commercial free and genre specific ala carte listening.

[Matximus]

Yeah... it's a big question mark where things are going. But here's the thing - radio, among other media, has a stubborn knack for sticking around long after people started penning obituaries. There are ample reasons to start writing terrestial radio's. We'll see.. But I'm a believer in AND. As in, people want to go the movies AND watch TV AND watch recorded film videos AND surf the Web AND use their iPods AND listen to the radio... The main fix is making a business proposition with those pie slices for people's time and money getting narrower and narrower.

[DeathRowJethro]

 

Taylor Swift knew someone important.

 

 

Yeah, her daddy who has financed her career.