Listeners can hear virtually any playlist for jockless music they want, including their own. Given all those options, would they choose your radio station’s music without the jocks?
It’s an intriguing question, one raised by a series of Spotify playlists brought to my attention recently by radio futurologist James Cridland. German user Ohrenweide has created nearly 100 streams that replicate the music heard on many of the world’s prominent radio stations, including BBC Radio 1 and Radio 2, Germany’s Radio Eins, and, from the U.S., KEXP Seattle and WXPN Philadelphia.
Ohrenweide’s playlists update in real time, meaning that they add new songs as played on those stations. Because songs are only added once — for the benefit of those listening on shuffle — what you’ll hear isn’t exactly what’s on the air. But if you’re listening in continuous music mode, you probably aren’t looking for Justin Bieber’s “Peaches” every 75 minutes anyway.
Stripped-down versions of existing stations have been offered before. In 2004, Microsoft’s MSN Music offered 900 stations that were meant to sound like prominent broadcast outlets, such as WHTZ (Z100) New York, “but with fewer ads, no DJ chatter, and less repetition.” At the time, I wrote that the MSN stations could not quite match a station’s musical essence, even if that was all you were looking for.
Anybody who has seen Cridland at a radio convention over the last 15 years knows him as one of broadcast radio’s most passionate and persuasive advocates. He famously defines radio as “a shared experience with a human connection,” meaning that most of its competitors, including streaming playlists, don’t make the cut. But Cridland does recognize a potential need for “the music that BBC Radio 6Music plays but without the earnest chat, news bulletins, promos for other things, and other clutter.”
Many of the stations that Ohrenweide recreates are the full-service European broadcasters that have plenty of those elements, particularly the hourly news. Often, when I stream those stations, I end up on their side channels, not just to hear new music, but because I’m more interested in hearing, say, their new releases without “Peaches” or any other song I could hear on my local stations. And five minutes of news in another language is lost on many listeners.
There is only one mainstream commercial U.S. station among Ohrenweide’s playlists, and that’s Country KEAN Abilene, Texas. Otherwise, he goes for public stations like KEXP and KCMP (the Current) Minneapolis that aren’t vulnerable on the spotload front in the way that the MSN stations were hoping. For those stations, it would seem to me like the full package is part of the appeal. Ohrenweide’s WXPN playlist includes Joni Mitchell’s Blue album in its entirety, but wouldn’t you want to hear what WXPN had to say about that album on its 50th anniversary?
But I agree when Cridland asks, “Is there an HD-2 channel idea here?” Could a station offer the full-service package on its main frequency, then a “non-stop” version on HD2 “with exactly the same music mix, and the same ads, with no other content? Does it mean you could actually have more local content and talk than the main FM, knowing that people who don’t like that can literally turn the personalities off? All automated?” Cridland even suggests an HD-3 devoted to a station’s news and info content.
I’ll go even further. HD Radio, after 15 years, still needs its magic bullet. The “jockless on HD2” version has occurred to me as well. Perhaps radio should position the HD-2 channel as a “mute button” for the jock. I would rarely choose that myself. Content is broadcast radio’s strongest line of defense, particularly now. When I choose Radio 2, I’m interested in its listener topics, even when they’re your favorite cookie (White Fudge Oreos, thanks), pineapple on pizza (fine, once I tried it), or any of those other “slow day” warhorses that radio people deride. And I’ve never actually heard Radio 2 discussing those.
But radio has not been competitive for the “if all you want is music” franchise, and many people do want that. Having an easy option for continuous music from a trusted brand, not just a random playlist, would make broadcast radio more competitive. That said, it would also compel broadcasters to address spotload and its streaming experience — things which make radio less competitive — once and for all.
I believe that broadcast radio still has the ability to compete for “continuous music” from a programming standpoint. We have a lifetime’s headstart in understanding listener preference, Even a few years ago, the pure-plays’ music sounded as random to me as the MSN playlists of 17 years ago. But that advantage is starting to dissipate in the playlist era. I think Today’s Top Hits on Spotify is often more on target than its broadcast counterpart. It’s one more reason to make a move now. And getting “continuous music” back without a magic bullet won’t easily happen now.
I’ve been hesitant to just put the “mute button” option out there. But I feel reasonably sure that broadcast radio’s competitors will get to it at some point, even without my help. The only holdup now is that Spotify, Amazon, and others still treat personality as mostly an opt-in option. There is still little that re-creates radio’s real time experience as Apple Music does.
Then again, for “with or without jocks” to be a viable option, broadcast radio also has to offer “with jocks” consistently. As Cridland points out, those listeners who opt in are probably looking for more content and more real-time content, not just “coming up, music from these three artists” or the same story that was on this morning’s entertainment report. It also means that radio would have to be consistently hosted 24/7, for those who wanted it. There’s potential in a mute button, but not if broadcasters are already muting themselves.
This story first appeared on radioinsight.com