h a l f b a k e r yLoading tagline ....
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I just thought, if there are so many p2p users now, why don't the radio stations monitor the download of the genre their playing so that they play what people want? Say you have a radio station that plays pop music, and they monitor 9,000 people downloading, lets say Justin Timberlake - Cry Me A River,
but then they see 21,000 people are downloading (Hot guy name inserted here) - (Catchy song title inserted here), so they bump down Justin Timberlake - Cry Me A River and play the other song that is being downloaded more by users. I think this would expose people to new artists instead of the same one they were listing to 8 years ago, don't you think? If you have any improvements on my idea feel free to comment all all you like, criticism is also accepted.
(Does anybody see where I'm going with this idea?)
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
I just heard a story this morning claiming that the recording industry was buying download statistics from illegal music trading sites. |
|
| |
doesn't it work the other way around? - people like the songs they hear the most on the radio, so they download them |
|
| |
You're assuming that radio stations are reactive to their audience. Most "request shows" these days refuse to play any songs which have not been pre-selected by computer. People asking for something leftfield will be asked to re-chose something from the next three songs instead. The caller will then be recorded, edited, and played to air asking for the selection which was already going to be played.
|
|
| |
Music testing is already done on a radio station's core audience demographic, namely those who are attractive to the station's advertisers. |
|
| |
From a programmer's perspective, who gives a rat's ass what 21,000 spotty 15 year olds download if all of the 25 - 32 year old mothers (who control the purse strings) and still interested in Justin Timberlake?
|
|
| |
Now, add demographic details to the downloads, and you would be onto something very valuable to most broadcasters. |
|
| |
Also (sorry to go on, but....) if a song isn't getting airplay, it WON'T get 21,000 downloads against Justin Timberlake's 9,000. New artists are made successful through airplay. That's how it works. If you stuck rigidly to your idea, I bet your only playlist additions would be from established artists on most commercial stations. |
|
| |
What [Fishrat] said. I've pretty much given up on commercial radio in the US, it is a waste. Stay below 92.0 FM and hear something interesting. |
|
| |
I'm in the UK [krelnik] - what happens below 92.0? Public Service Broadcasting? |
|
| |
More to the point, perhaps the Top 20 charts promulgated by various sources should include MP3 downloads? |
|
| |
I think of stations below 92.0 in the US as being more lazz/classical/news talk kind of stuff, although I don't think there are laws to regulate the type of broadcast based on your frequency. |
|
| |
The charts in the UK are about to start using official mp3 downloads in the make up of the charts quite soon. It was to start in October but it has been put off untill the new year.
A uk band call Muse had a single out in May/June time that they pre- released on their web site. They had 25,000 downloads in a week which cost £1 each. |
|
| |
[Fish]/[leuc], in my experience yes, public radio. A few others are down there as well but it's mostly community and public radio. |
|
| |