tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10354554.post1517430695682093234..comments2023-10-12T07:09:45.450-07:00Comments on Douginthehouse. : CMJ ISSUE 1382 RECAP WEEK 9 Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11869222943805655924noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10354554.post-42303427519283272452015-03-04T11:30:40.904-08:002015-03-04T11:30:40.904-08:00AND
Do away with ADDS charts. Makes promoters si...AND<br /><br />Do away with ADDS charts. Makes promoters silly, emphasizes bad data, bad MD's habits, and leads to rash programming decisions. In some cases, if not completely made up to appease distros pushing MD's already over their heads = ["Hey, you haven't given <b>ME</b> an ADD in weeks. <b>Why!?</b>"]<br /><br />Ultimately, the question to ask is what would affect CMJ's 'product'? Some random station charting 'Goldfinger' or adding a title off adds-date three weeks left will not affect the data at the top. The data that CMJ reports in the issues. A station charting Sharon Jones to 'HIP-HOP' will not stem the tide of putting 'Sleater-Kinney' onto the exalted "COVER". Father John Misty is much sexier to highlight on March 4th than, say, 'The Decemberists'. Putting <i>Purity Ring: Eternally Added</i> on the this week's cover is much sexier than 'Matthew E. White' who has much less visibility, reach, and current name-recognition.<br /><br />Re: CMJ. What sells a viable product? More importantly, what sells the influence of the CMJ Marathon? If you know those answers, then you'll understand the motivations (or lack thereof). At best, beyond subscriptions, the charts/issues and publishing of them are loss-leaders to a different business model and monetization path - i.e. their continuation on being the <i>SXSW of NYC</i> during the Fall and selling passes. Larger changes will have to occur in the marketplace in order for CMJ to digress from its own current ways of operation. So, expect nothing to change on the charting front until other external forces (or bankruptcy) prompt it.<br /><br />Ultimately, it's not about breaking or championing 'new' artists anymore as a 'system', as a 'community'. It's not really about College Radio as a viable and recognized media platform. The more we remove ourselves from the core mission(s) and vision(s) of what College Radio is on a base programming level, the more it will continue to erode. It will further fall into a quantity over quality model for the distros. and a national reporting entity that aggregates the data they want at will that matches up to a 'brand' with no real progress towards good communication, community, and support for the stations it charges monies for the mere privilege to participate in. <br /><br />And yes, I'll agree with Doug, stop charging 'Goldfinger'. That is all.al0137https://www.blogger.com/profile/12064455977868524605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10354554.post-50061213121389672122015-03-04T11:30:07.019-08:002015-03-04T11:30:07.019-08:00"While the Decemberists had another great wee..."While the Decemberists had another great week of #1's and improved core, Father John Misty also had a great week with #1's and had slightly more Core under its belt."<br /><br />>>If anything is to prove that the only stations that truly <i>matter</i> are CORES, then look at Recap for issue #1381. The current status of College Radio, next to modern media conglomeration for radio airplay elsewhere, is antithetical to this concept. We are not Billboard, we are not FMQB. The metrics that make a CORE, minus ERP, are subjective. The work is done on the ground, in aggregate. Every station pays the same to report, but are not seen equivalent. It's a have and have-not caste system. There is no recourse with limited resources without external monitoring systems. We have not reached progress - we have reached a system where very few are truly counted. Some university in select academic departments some twenty years ago put resources into their radio station. Now they determine the charts. Again, apologies to 'The Decemberists'.<br /><br />"Is it that the older records are bigger names, or that the companies pushing them don't want to let go? "<br /><br />>>A little of the former, more that (most) records will take longer to gestate into the hearts and minds of persons having to consolidate and curate a massive amount of media content. Forget your standard issue college DJ who doesn't follow this media as general consumption. Many variables at play, but music is still consumed and shared by some form of organic means - alternate media, word of mouth, etc.. The myopic CMJ programmer concept that 'x' artist's ADDS on 'y' issue strongly points to a #1 shot by 'z' issue is played out so many times, which leads me to examples Doug mentions...<br /><br />"Is Jose Gonzalez a contender? Last weeks #1 most added Dan Deacon could see itself in the FJM role and shoot past Jose for a clearer shot at #1. "<br /><br />>>No, and no. Neither Gonzalez or the new Deacon have any shot at #1. Here is where too much stock put into ADDS charts. They are merely one point of data and reference at a finite time in any reporting cycle. Either of those two titles will have to hit on something <i>outside</i> of CR within popular culture: i.e. a crossover hit to other media, platforms, and/or other factors (i.e. PR, marketing 'spread', commercialized sound). These records themselves don't hold up to deep programming options or name recognition outside of the format. This is neither a good or bad thing, as these artists might be true crossover artists of the future. Purity Ring will be your next #1 in 2-3 issues. A great example of an artist with monied interests behind it, some established fan-base, and a LOT of faux hype surrounding a pretty stale act. It's all in the game, and you will get a couple "Purity Rings" per year always.<br /><br />"Should we be asking for a CORE chart to return, should we look at which stations are CORE or not, should we be looking at some new chart that we haven’t even thought of yet (some new genre, or a specific chart just for non-CORE stations to see what’s bubbling under at the 100s of smaller stations out there)? What would you change?"<br /><br />>>Unweighted charts. All CMJ reporting stations equal. Simple frequency/rank metrics for chart position. All charts open for reporting. More robust data management on CMJ's side: i.e. title metrics (dates, issues, expirations, valid specialty charts). All other data goes into a recurrent or 'legacy'. CMJ already auto compiles the data for their AAA "chart" based on select station's 200 submissions - so, they can easily auto-compile this. 95% of issues resolved...al0137https://www.blogger.com/profile/12064455977868524605noreply@blogger.com