You're missing the whole point of a song request!

why request a song from a DJ?

you don’t need me you have spotify

— WESTEND 🇺🇦 (@itsthewestend) June 22, 2021

Why do people still request to hear their favourite song on the radio or from a DJ when it’s available at the touch of a button on their Spotify, Apple Music or YouTube app?

If it was purely about hearing the song, I’d agree - you wouldn't bother. But there’s usually a human connection involved, unlike in searching and pressing play yourself.

It’s emotion-driven - whether you’re dedicating a track to a loved one to make their day or just want to cheer yourself up by connecting with the presenter keeping you company.

Similarly, if you request a song from a DJ at an event, it’s about being able to share a moment with others and the experience that comes with with it (e.g. singing and dancing on a night out).

Traffic AND Travel

When you reach the top and defeat the last academic boss, they take you into a secret room and finally explain the difference between Aims and Objectives

— Tim Groenland (@groenbot) June 15, 2021

Much like the "traffic AND travel" debate in radio - and, by the way, traffic is a way to travel, so "travel" will suffice - why do we say "aims and objectives" when one or the other would do?

Some argue an aim is just the intention whereas an objective is more detailed in terms of how you’ll achieve what may be referred to as an aim - but the Oxford Dictionary definition of an objective is just "a thing aimed at or sought; a goal"... so, err, an aim then.

"Terms & Conditions" (or the irritating "Ts & Cs") is another one. There’s no legal difference between the two.

In fact, the definition of term in this context actually begins with the word conditions: "conditions under which an action may be undertaken or agreement reached; stipulated or agreed requirements."

Amazon Music's DJ Mode

Amazon Music has launched DJ Mode (only in the US currently) - adding presenter commentary and insights to a number of playlists. Billie Eilish is the first to be signed for a 'show' of her favourite songs and stories about them.

Why are streaming services so keen to integrate radio-like content? You might think it’s a no brainer considering the medium’s continued popularity globally - but is taking on radio really the primary objective of projects like this?

Apple launched Beats 1 six years ago as part of Apple Music.

It’s struggled to really cut through with little marketing and restricted access; all tucked away in the Apple Music app which even most iOS users never touch.

Radio is a credible offer in doing big-name deals which are good for their image and further clout in the music streaming space, so it’s working for them in that sense.

The opposite of visualisation

GB News has announced it’s in the final stages of completing a long-term deal with Arqiva to secure spectrum on D1 for a full audio simulcast of the forthcoming TV channel.

A TV and radio simulcast isn’t a new concept - in August 2000, ITN launched its short-lived rolling news TV channel along with a radio station (the 10th service to start on D1) but this had some radio-only content.

GB News haven’t announced plans for that as of yet. I’m guessing there’ll be split ads at least as not every TV commercial would work as audio.

Listeners would get 30 seconds of "someone’s knocking at the door" without any context!

From reports, it sounds like the channel will be more like a talk radio station than a rolling news channel, so how hard can it be to avoid saying "as you can see..."?

Fewer "proper DJs", more relevance

As Greatest Hits Radio sign Martin Kemp for a new series exploring the contribution London has made to the greatest hits of all time, the usual suspects were up in arms about the idea of a celebrity presenting a radio show:

Why not an experienced presenter? What happened to proper DJ’s?

By "experienced presenter" they mean experience of radio presentation.

Obviously not all masters of one medium could fully grasp another - no-one can do everything - but surely life experience and relevance is more important than being able to hit a vocal?

A celebrity in a different field may begin their presenting career on TV so why shouldn’t they be able to start on radio? They’d draw an audience to the medium we all adore, so it’s a win-win.

Furthermore, if you’re always demanding “experience”, where's the talent pipeline? Even the legends were new to it once!

Why shouldn't existing telly stars be allowed to host radio shows? We cheer venues and festivals that manage to secure big name acts. We’re enticed by TV shows featuring familiar faces.

Today’s content creators are multi-platform - and radio is just one of those platforms.

Yesterday's Unimaginative Positioner

This is what I picture in my head whenever radio stations say they have “the best mix of 80s, 90s, and today”. It’s been today for 21 years. You can’t keep getting away with this. pic.twitter.com/OxvrMVjobE

— Drew Gooden (@drewisgooden) May 27, 2021

80s, 90s and today - why are radio stations still using this as a positioner? Unless you don’t play anything from the last two decades for some bizarre reason, it sounds weird to classify them as "today".

A reply to Drew’s tweet observes:

Radio stations saying 'The Best of the 80s, 90s, 00s and 10s' just doesn’t sound right though.

Quite. It’s the rule of three. If you add more, it’s just clutter.

The simple solution is to be more imaginative.

While we’re on the subject of slogans, you also want to avoid meaningless jargon (e.g. Today’s Best Mix or A Better Music Mix - better than...?)

I’ve always liked simple positioning statements that you could imagine a listener using to describe you (e.g. The Best Songs Ever or Just Great Songs).

With today's level of competition, you need something that really makes the station stand out - an elevator pitch that explains what someone gets out of tuning in.