Smoking & Self Awareness

Hey, Doc.  I really enjoy your column.  I learn something new every day.  Two questions for you, and I’m interested in your answers.

 

1.  Does smoking cigarettes deepen your voice?  I don’t smoke, but friends of mine who do, report that their voices are temporarily “deeper” after they puff on their cancer sticks (as I like to call them).  Any truth to this?

 

2.  I was once told that I’m “not cursed with self-awareness.”  Since you have a doctorate, I thought you’d be a wise choice for answering that question, because I have no idea what the person who made that comment, meant.

 

As always, love your column and can’t wait to read your answers. - Anonymous

 

Anon:  I’m glad you enjoy the column.  I learn things almost every day too, so we’re in the same boat as the saying goes.  On to your questions.

  1. Yes, smoking deepens a person’s voice.  Probably a better way to say it is that smoking screws up a person’s voice (decreases voice quality, promotes laryngitis, and all sorts of “neat” negative things).  This is well documented in any review on the adverse of affects of smoking.  If you would like to read more about it, do a search for smoking affect voice on the Internet.

  2. ”The world is made for people who aren’t cursed with self-awareness.”  This frequently quoted line comes from the Annie Savoy character in the film, Bull Durham.  What does it mean?  I’m sure you could find many explanations, but here is mine:

  3. As human beings, we are blessed or cursed (depending on how you perceive it) with the ability to think about everything we do—where we “fit” at home, work, and in the universe, the consequences of our actions, how we behave and react toward others, our social status, how we can change ourselves and our environment, and more.  The people who worry about all these things are those who are “cursed with self-awareness.”  These people think about everything they do and are constantly worried about what others think (“I’m not going to dance to disco songs because I’ll look like a nerd.”)

  4. On the other hand, there are people who aren’t “cursed by self-awareness” and don’t spend a lot of time (if any) worrying about everything they do.  They accept life for what it is at the moment and pursue only those things they really need; they are spontaneous; they may be called “free spirits” or “easy-going.”

I think a good way to differentiate the two groups is this:  People who are cursed with self-awareness take themselves too seriously; people who aren’t cursed with self-awareness do not.  It’s OK to take things seriously, but the problem is when people take themselves too seriously.  (Dance as if you’re the only one in the room.)

Social Security Form

Doc:  I'm writing to you because you said you would try to answer any question.  I hope you can answer this one.  I won't go into all the details, but I need Form 7028 from the Social Security Administration.  I called them and they said the form is available on their website (SSA).  It isn't there.  I called back and they said they couldn't send the form to me.  They said I have to go to a local Social Security office to get the form.  I don't have a lot of time to do such things, so do you know of any place where I could get the form?  I know this is a crazy question, but you could really save me a lot of time and agony. - Anonymous

 

Anon: I did check the Social Security website and you are correct in saying that the form isn't available there.  The statement about Form 7028 says:

 

Employers and other third parties (e.g., banks, military recruiters) often need to know the Social Security number assigned to an individual. Form SSA-7028 (Notification of SSN to Third Party) is used for this purpose. The form is completed by the local office where you have applied for your Social Security number and is sent to the third party. We do not have the form online as it is only used by Social Security offices and is not intended for public use.

 

It's interesting that they told you it was available on their website.  Anyway, after a little looking on the Internet, I found it in a PDF document.  Click on this link and you'll see the form as the last page in the document—Form 7028.

Soft Water

Doc:  Where I live we have very soft water.  For the most part it's a plus.  But, when one is in the shower using bar soap, even though the soap has rinsed, it doesn't feel like it.  It almost seems like there's a film of soap still remaining on one's body.  First of all, because you're so close to the mountains, does the Denver area have soft water?  Two, are there special soaps made for soft water locales?  It's pretty minor to me, but still, it'd be nice not to feel like there's a film of soap still on my body.  PS: This only applies with bar soap; liquid soap rinses off completely.  All my best. - Soft Water Man

 

Soft Water Man:  Do we have soft water in the Denver area?  We sure do!  The cattle no longer roam around the streets, and we have cars, computers, microwaves, and all sorts of neat stuff.  (Sorry, I just had to say that.)  On to your questions . . .

 

If you read articles on the Internet about the differences between soft and hard water, you'll see that your complaint about feeling a "film" (some people say it feels "slimy") on your body is actually a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

You may not take my word for it, so here are a few comments about your "film" complaint [edited by me]:

 

One reason you may feel "slimy" is that when soap and mineral scum are absent [when using soft water], your natural body oils make your skin feel oilier, which some people interpret as being slimy.

 

When the hardness minerals are removed during the water softening process, soap no longer forms a soap curd, or "bathtub ring" on your skin, plugging your pores, or clinging to hair. You are now truly clean. That slick, slimy feeling you feel is your natural body oils—without the soap scum.  The old saying that you get "squeaky-clean" is a myth—the soap scum on your skin causes that feeling.

 

The "slimy" feeling when using soft water is actually a good thing!  When you have hard water, it does not lather well and it actually smears and closes up the pours in your skin.  But when you have soft water, soap lathers well and actually opens your pores and your body oils come out—this is the "slimy" feeling.  Actually, it is much healthier to have soft water because you will actually get cleaner by opening your pores."

 

OK, now that you have read those statements, I think you may now know why your liquid soap "rinses off completely," and your bar soap does not.  The liquid soap you are using is leaving a film on your body that you interpret as "clean," but it's not.  Try a different liquid soap and you'll have the same film as bar soap (which is good).

 

Finally, you ask if there are special soaps for soft water areas.  Once again, you should now know why you feel a "film" on your skin, so you should use a soap that does that.  If you feel "squeaky clean" as mentioned above, you're using the wrong type of soap.

Song Burn

What's up Doc? How about this: At what point should we start to worry about the ‘burn' of a particular record? Let's keep this out of the realm of ‘gut' instinct and just worry about the math. Is 20% too high a burn score? Is there a correlation between the decrease in ‘Like a lot' and an increase in the ‘burn' percentage of that same song? Doesn't a 20% burn mean that 80% aren't "burned out" by the song yet? Just wondering. - Dave


Dave: The reason you will never hear Regis Philbin ask this question is that there is no correct answer. You say to worry about math, not gut feelings. OK, I will, and I'll just use your reversal of the burn percentage . . . If a song has a 20% burn, that means that 80% are not burned. I think the "math" shows that 80% is substantially larger than 20%. What about a 30% burn?


Where do YOU place the "cut" line? I cannot think of a statistical method that would provide a foolproof answer. The only thing I can do is ask a question. Assume that a song has a 30% burn. That means that 70% aren't burned. Is it a bad decision to play a song that 70% of the people want to hear? In other words, you have a 70 share. Would Ford, Coors, Zenith, or any other company be happy or unhappy with a 70 share? You decide.


You also squeaked in a question about the correlation between a decrease in "Like a lot" scores and an increase in burn percentages. You owe me an Iced tea for this and I expect payment if we ever meet. However, I pursued the question because I found it very interesting. I admit that I never really thought about it enough to take a close look. But here is what I found after conducting many, as in many, correlations in the past few days:


There is a curvilinear relationship between song ratings and burn. That is, there is a negative correlation between low ratings and burn, and a positive correlation between high ratings and burn. However, considering the Total score, the range of Pearson Product Moment Correlations is +.50 to +.55. In other words, as the total song score (and consequently the percentage of "Like a lot" ratings) goes up, so does burn percentage. Keep in mind that the correlation is only moderate. However, it's just the opposite of what you thought—that's why opinions should be checked once in a while.

Song Categories

Can you give a beginner a run down of the most commonly used song categories and a description of them? (Heavy Current, Power Recurrent, Gold, Power Gold, etc.). - Anonymous

 

Anon: I asked my friend Jhani Kaye (KBIG and KOST in L.A.) to answer your question. Here is what he said:

 

Typically, currents are divided into 2 or 3 categories. The hottest testing songs are usually given "A" status. There are fewer songs in this category than say, the "B" category, insuring that these popular songs rotate more often. (Depending upon the format, As will rotate as quickly as 90 minutes to about to 4½ hours.)

 

Bs would be a secondary category of currents with a 6+ hour rotation. Some programmers include songs coming up the chart and songs falling out of A status in this B category. Still other programmers will have a very light "C" category for currents that play only occasionally.

 

Regarding Gold . . . Many programmers like to divide their Gold into Eras. For instance, there may be a division between ‘80s, ‘90s, and 2000+ product. Much like the currents, each era can have songs that are more popular than the others, so some stations actually divide each Era into two categories: a Power Gold ‘80s (for example) and a Regular Gold ‘80s.

Songs – Changes in Ratings

I heard a song on the radio the other day that I always hated when it was new.  From the time it was new and through it’s cycle up and down the charts, I never liked it.  Then I didn’t hear it for a year or two.  When I heard it the other day, for some odd reason, I didn’t mind it.  In fact, I slightly enjoyed it.  Why?  And, have you ever seen that happen in your research?

 

If so, I’m getting some ideas to freshen up my station’s recurrents and gold!  (After tests of course.) - Anonymous

Anon:  You raise an interesting question that I have discussed over the years, but it’s something that most people (PDs, etc.) don’t pay much attention to.  However, from 20+ years of music tests and talking with listeners, here is what I know about your question.

Most people tend to prefer the music that was popular during the “formative” years—usually the teens and maybe even early 20s.  Whatever that music happens to be is their “foundation” and they like to listen to these songs most often.  However, most people also like songs from other formats (genres) that relate in some way to the favorite “formative” music.  For example, a person may prefer Classic Rock from the 70s, but may also like a few Country songs because they “fit” the sound or feel of Classic Rock.  (There are also many people who like a wide variety of music and the songs do not have to relate to each other in any way.)

 

However, as you seem to have experienced, some people tend to change their music tastes slightly (or maybe even dramatically) over time.  A song or type of music that was disliked earlier in life now becomes well liked.  For example, younger people may dislike romantic songs (ballads), but find that these songs “become better” as they grow older.  The “jump in the bathtub and slit your wrists love songs” that were hated at age 21 become relevant and liked as the person grows older.

 

From what I have seen, most of the changes in music likes and dislikes relate to changes in life (growing older) and lifestyle.  You didn’t mention the name of the song that you once hated and now like, but my guess is that the lyrics or music are now relevant to you—you “grew into” the song.  Once again, my experience indicates that this isn’t unique.

 

Although we know a lot about listeners’ music likes and dislikes, there is a lot we don’t know.  And one of the things we don’t know a lot about is the example you provide.  How many people “grow into” songs?  Are there certain formats where this is more prevalent?  Are there certain types of songs where this happens more often?  Are there certain artists that become more popular as a listener grows older?  Why exactly do people switch from hating a song to liking a song?

 

I think it would be easy to investigate these questions.  The only thing needed is someone (like you) who wants the answers.

Song Cover Bands

Hello.  I'm getting ready to do a one-hour show every Wednesday of today’s modern rock bands doing cover songs and I need help on find who did what.  Thanks. - Doyle

 

Doyle:  Hello to you too.  Here are two sites that should get you started: Audio Street and All Music.  When you get there, enter the title of a song and you can see all the bands that have performed it.

 

If those sites don’t provide enough information, I set up two searches for you: Cover Search One and Cover Search Two.

Song Debut (Country Music)

Nashville Star Season 2 winner Brad Cotter’s song "I Meant To" is the highest debuting song on Billboard since January 1990.  Many sources have said this same thing or a variation of that.  One thing they don’t say is who is the highest debuting artist.  It would be nice to put it in perspective.

 

Can you help me?  I'd hate to have to buy a Billboard book for this.  Help us Obi Wimmer Kenobi.  You're our only hope. - Josh

 

Josh:  Obi Wimmer Kenobi?  Geez.   I made the assumption that you’re asking about the highest debuting Country song, so I sent your question to Wade Jessen, Director of Country, Christian, Gospel & Bluegrass Charts at Billboard.  I’d like to thank Wade for his help.  He said:

 

Brad Cotter's single established a new record for the highest entry by a new artist's debut single (No. 42) since we adopted Nielsen BDS for our charts in January 1990.  The prior record was set by first season “Nashville Star” winner Buddy Jewell, when his “Help Pour Out the Rain (Lacey's Song)” entered at No. 44 in the May 24, 2003 Billboard.

 

The highest debut for any artist in the BDS era was a No. 19 start for Garth Brooks' "The Thunder Rolls" in the May 18, 1991 issue.

Song Era Conversion

Hi Doc.  I’m trying to come up with an average year for a hour of music.  One station plays more current music than the other does.  Station A plays 16 songs in the hour while station B plays 14.  I added the year for each song from station A, and did the same for station B.  A’s total was 31958.  B’s total was 27954.  How can I make a comparison when one station plays two songs less per hour?  I hope I’m clear.  If not, let me know and I’ll refocus. - Anonymous

Anon:  No, you don’t need to refocus.  Your question is clear.  The problem is that you’re approaching the problem in an awkward way because sometimes the average of a set of numbers may not mean anything.  Let me explain with two examples.

 

Example 1: Assume that Station A, which plays 16 songs per hour in your example, plays 8 songs from 1987 and 8 songs from 2002 (that’s a 16-year spread).  If you simply add the years together and compute the average, it comes to 1994.  What does that mean?  The radio station doesn’t play any songs from 1994 and, therefore, the average year is misleading.

 

Example 2: Assume that Station A’s 16 songs consist of one song each from each year 1987 to 2002.  Again, the average year is 1994.  What does that mean other than it’s in the middle of the 16 years?  You might think that Station A’s music is focused on or around 1994, but that’s not true.

 

It would be more meaningful to use percentages.  In the first example, you would say that 50% of the songs are from 1987 and 50% are from 2002.  Now we know more about the era of songs and this is more meaningful than an “average year of 1994.”  In the second example, each year accounts for 6.25% of the total, showing that there is no concentration on a specific year—there is an equal representation of songs from 1987 to 2002.

 

Now, with all that said, here’s the answer to your question…

 

You need to divide Station A’s total by 16, and divide Station B’s total by 14.  If you do that, you’ll find these averages:

 

Station A: (31958/16) = 1997.37

Station B: (27954/14) = 1996.71

 

I’m not really sure what that means.  You could say that Station A leans somewhat more current, but that might not be true.  You need to look at the data.

Song Repetition Complaints

How can I know for sure if I'm playing songs on my radio station too often? I realize that occasional song repetition complaints probably mean I'm doing something right. However, is there solid, scientific way to know if songs are truly being played too often? Thanks for the advice. - Anonymous

 

Anon: Yes, there is a scientific way to find out if your songs are being played too often, but there isn't anyone who is willing to pay for the research. Instead, we resort to gathering research indications by asking listeners questions like, "Which radio station, if any, repeats songs too often?"

 

The most significant problem with understanding listener complaints about repetition is that there is a tremendous lack of information about repetition. For example,

The main problem in understanding repetition is that there isn't (that I know of) a universally accepted operational definition of repetition. (An operational definition assigns meaning to a concept by specifying observable phenomena that represent the idea; a definition that can be quantified or measured.) We need a universally accepted definition of "repetition." That is, exactly what does repetition mean? Does it relate to the number of spins or something else? We need this definition in order to investigate repetition. Simply counting the number of listeners who say that the radio station "repeats songs too often" is too vague. What does "too often" mean?

 

While a scientific study to investigate repetition would be easy to conduct, the study would involve time and money. And that won't happen in the radio industry because there isn't anyone who would be willing to pay for the research. This shouldn't surprise you or anyone else since most decisions in radio are made based on "it seems like" logic.

 

In the meantime, the best that you can do is to try to get a better understanding of repetition by talking to your listeners. Ask detailed questions when they complain about repetition. What do they mean? Which songs are repeated too often? And so on.

 

Click Here for Additional S Questions

 

A Arbitron B C D E F G H I J K-L M
Music-Callout Music-Auditorium N O P Q R S T U V W-X-Z Home

All Content © 2009 - Wimmer Research   All Rights Reserved