The Gold Crisis

Now that it's July, our attention shifts to anticipating the Spring book, budgets and planning for that pre-fall research project. Because the Fall book is so important to annual buys, and because many economic forecasts see Winter '96 in the midst of a recession, this Summer's research is going to be absolutely critical.

Recent auditorium tests have not been stellar. Blame it on better programming techniques, increased competition or more niche formats; but most stations libraries are in serious trouble. The strip-mine and counter-programming tactics of the past five years have caused formally evergreen songs to score poorly, leaving little compelling gold for us to pound over the next six months. Perhaps the worst villain is research itself. When there is a limited number of songs to test, that condition allows a programmer an even smaller universe from which to pick titles. This creates a downward spiral of shrinking inventory and greater listener alienation.

This alienation is manifest in both a greater perception of burn and lower familiar scores on playable songs across the library --regardless of format, test methodology, or vendor. This phenomenon lowers the musical strength of the radio station. In order to hold or increase our market share, we must increase the number of titles we test and get longer rotations out of those titles that test well. Additionally, we must continue to research stylistically relevant songs even after they appear too burned to play.

What we must not do is play marginal records or increase current inventories. These are the two most common mistakes programmers make when facing a gold crisis. As soon as you adjust your score criteria downward, you risk weakening your station. Simply adding current titles can only cause you heartache as you strain your audience's capacity for new music, and handicap your ability to make other currents familiar.

Here are some other options:

Foster familiarity. This is the best yet most difficult way of managing The Gold Crisis. The key here is to find a way of assessing potential. A simplistic definition of potential is the ratio of extreme positive to recognition. High positives on a song with relatively low recognition suggest potential. Songs with greater potential warrant higher rotation despite their low familiarity. It is not enough however, merely to ignore the familiarity score. Songs with very high unfamiliar scores may well have high negative scores, especially in tests made up predominantly of men. There is a great deal of math required to measure a songs potential. All of a song's scores should be taken into account. Your vendor should have some modeling to help you. Don't attempt to gauge potential alone unless you passed (and remember) your calculus. Use hotter rotations to bring up familiar scores on these records.

Showcase depth. Secondary titles that are essential to your sound yet under- perform the mean scores of your test require delicate treatment. Make sure to bond these titles to your core. Perfect Album Sides, Desert Island Essentials, and All- Request shows are great mechanisms for accomplishing this. Make sure that the songs appear tied to the audience. Give the sense that the audience has control of your programming and has chosen these records personally.

Gauge burn accurately. With each new auditorium test that crosses my desk I'm reminded that the younger and more mobile the audience, the greater the impact burn has. Keep this in mind as you establish cut off points for burn for your audience. Mean burn scores and standard deviations should help define what "burned" really is in a given test. Again: check with your vendor or consultant about the math.

Monitor recovery. Hopefully you're seeing how inter-dependent call-out and auditorium testing are. Auditorium testing gives us benchmarks while call-out allows us to monitor changes in a song's maturity. A given song's appeal is going to change over time. Stay close and manage the new risk that all songs assume over time. Burn scores lower if a song's rotations are decreased. Monitor the rate of recovery in your call-out as well as the rates in the growth of familiarity relative to the spins you are giving a title. Don't forget to take into account other play in the market. Over time the big question that arises is that of relevance. Even though the song is no longer burned is it still relevant ? Does it still sound like you? Conversely, is a given song still relevant to your core once it has reached full familiarity?

Open your style screen. Don't blow out a title simply based on your idea of fit. Most audiences are more stylistically diverse than we give them credit for. Yes, variety is defined for most people with the pre-sets on their car radio. However you garner cume with songs you share with other formats. Service your target demographic, not your format.

Increase rotations (not inventory) of new music. We've found that many stations can handle as much as a 30% increase (for example going from 30-40 plays a week on a given power) in the rotations of their power currents if the station is in the business of playing current records. This one shift can bring amazing relief to your gold categories. Obviously this will also speed new music along its life cycle, and help to replenish those dry gold categories. Remember: increase rotation, not inventory.

Manage risk better. Every song you play carries with it a measure of risk. New songs have inherent low familiarity. Highly recognized songs shared with other stations can bore your P1's, and weaken your image and position in the market. Conversely, songs that reinforce your position and strengthen your core can alienate new cume. Balance your music flow with these risks in mind.

Don't compromise the sound of your station by lowering your song score criteria. Use the tactics outlined above to manage the risk of increasing burn and low familiarity.

To get the latest from MEDIATHINK in your e-mail click here