Baby Bands Vs. Legends: Where's The Center-Point For Country?

Like other formats, over time Country has experienced eras of "convergence" and "divergence." Historically, format appeal has been at its zenith during periods of convergence -- or where music coalesces with more format exclusivity. As far back as the vaunted Urban Cowboy era, new artists riding the surge of a movie became a rallying point and the format was reborn.

Then, just as the format waned in the late '80s, giving way to the force of Top 40 and newfound AC success, along came a recession, Gulf War I and Garth Brooks. Suddenly -- or so it seemed -- exciting new acts and post-2005 catalog songs envelop playlists; we opine there is danger in tilting a station too far in that direction -- unless vectored there by a perceptual blueprint. Here's why.

Routinely when working with perceptual studies, when we cross-tab titles overlaid with demo subsets, it's not uncommon in a given market to find 25-34s actually rating early-mid-'90s genre as high or higher than some post 2005 "New Country," and conversely 35-49 females may prefer a 2005 "Idol" alumnus as opposed to a Brooks & Dunn catalog song.

What's the message in all this? Well, as one successful programmer recently pointed out, we can easily lose the high-end where large amounts of cume-to-fan conversion (aka TSL) are embedded if "Young Country" is summarily replaced with "New Country." In many markets two, sometimes three competitors' playlists are virtually duplicated. So, whatever you do, hang the following phrase near the pop machine in the commissary: "Differentiate or Die."

To granulate this further,"Young Country" is in our syntax, a complete state-of-mind: a music scheme that braids new artists and titles with massively familiar and high acceptance "gold" titles, surrounded by an almost Top 40 animation with right-brain imaging and relentless fun and "pharmaceutical value."

"New Country," in our lexicon, is a music shading for differentiation through emphasis on post- 2000 artists and larger percentages of current /recurrent, and post-2005 titles.

Consider:

• When KPLX made the decision to leave its legacy behind and reinvent as The Wolf, Susquehanna based their strategy on the premise that their catalog would be tight with a coalition of sonic styles as well as eras: Clint Back early titles merged with "New Country" genre. It was neither "young" nor "traditional" but instead, deadly accurate.
• They focused on highly animated forward-flow, unmistakably Wolf packaging: right brain liners, fun, fast-forward promos and sweepers, and above all, talent that delivered more than, "Here's the latest from ..." or, "On the way next hour..."
• They played new currents, a lot of recurrent titles and consensus gold catalog songs. The hyper-target: Women 25-44. Even though there were other very solid Country players in the market, The Wolf rewrote the rules of the format for DFW in 1999.
• Five years earlier in DFW's format wars, Young Country broke the plain with almost totally right-brain imaging, a 275 active-title playlist and unprecedented attitude: "Just 'cause your boots is in the oven don't make 'em biscuits!" to which listeners looked at their radio asking themselves, "What did he say?"
• We may be coming to a point where, as seen in Top 40 or AC, Country splinters into a New Country / Mainstream Country world with a distinct dichotomy between the two, with the line mainly drawn between '90s catalog artists (George Strait, Clint Black, Alan Jackson) in confluence with their 2000's Mainstream counterparts (McGraw, Hill, Twain, Brooks & Dunn), faced off against today's truly "New Country" and its highest ranking 18-34-centric stars: Pickler, Bentley, Underwood, Sugarland, Aldean, Swift and the Flatts.

To Be Determined:

• What is your station's average song year age over a 24-hour plot?
• What is your primary format rival's average song year age?
• Where's the least-contested sweet spot? Are you mirroring a competitor based on strategic principle, or because it seems like the safe competitive play?
• Which of the two stations are perceived via credible research as the "most hip" or "youngest-leaning" not simply in music, but in total brand awareness. Never let a competitor own the perception of "most-hip."
• What are your dominant sonic-genres versus theirs? This refers to the textural

  song-styles you play by percentage? (Country Dance, Country Rock, Uplifting Ballads,

  Female Superstars and so forth)
• Don't fall into the trap whereby "most hip" is solely determined by the vintage of the catalog (current/recurrent versus gold title percentage).
• What are your strongest non-music value points and how are they perceivably different to the Country cumers and P-1 partisans in your market?

Fewer companies are issuing checks for research projects at a time when Country needs music intelligence more than ever. Scoring a list of 500 titles is of great value, and a great place to start. Unfortunately, it's a terrible place to stop. Title, artist and era are only a fraction of your station's total "brand depth."

As choices increase in markets where there exist three or perhaps four Country brands in play, the Law of Duality always comes to the front which says: In any competitive engagement, no matter how many contenders in the game, two brands will always emerge leaving the others in the distance.

As heard by Audience Development Group clients year-in and year-out, regardless of format there is only one uncanny and irrefutable linchpin between your cume and P1 favorite-station status: music accuracy. When your music is strategically sound, only then will added layers of "brand depth" really help set your image apart raising your retentive value in the market.

Listeners don't watch radio; they listen to it. But occasionally you need to cause them to look at it, or you might just fade away. The first rule of winning over the public is to be noticed. The second is to be remembered.