Hear 2.0

Test Your Indecency I.Q.

I'm ashamed we even have to think this way, but there's a cool "Test Your Indecency IQ" quiz on the Jacobs Media site.

The prize for winning: You get to keep your license.

Maybe commercials don't matter

AD "CLUTTER" ON THE RISE

Throughout the world, the average adult watched 80 commercials a day in 2003, according to a report, "Seeing Through the Clutter," released today (Tuesday) by the media agency Initiative, which surveyed 45 countries. The most "cluttered" market was Indonesia where TV watchers saw an average of 852 ads per week in 2003. The U.S. was second on the list with 817 commercials, or 117 per day. The rise was attributed to the viewing public's increasing interest in cable- and satellite-delivered programs, which generally contain more commercials than over-the-air network telecasts.

So in other words...

Viewers are seeking out programming DESPITE the heavier commercial volume that this programming contains.

Quality - or quantity - of programming outweighs the nagging influence of commercials.

What do you think this suggests about the radio audience's REAL feeling about commercials, regardless of what they TELL you in your research?

Jingle all the way

Can the average listener recall your station's jingle and hum the tune?

If so, great! You have created a memory trigger!

If not, why are you bothering? What a tremendous waste. It's not "ear candy" folks, it's memory food.

Jingles are made to be remembered - if they're made well.

Freedom's just another word for something we should lose

49% of respondents to a nationwide survey conclude that "the media is too free."

I'm waiting for the results from the related study: "49% of Americans have never heard of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights."

How People Meters Can Kill You

A No-Nonsense Marketing Smart Tip
June 29, 2004

I'm all for People Meters as a ratings tool. Especially compared to the antiquated and clunky diary. Yeah, the winners and losers will be different, but that's a topic for a different article. Here I want to tackle something less discussed but just as important: Arbitron's argument that the PPM can help you make minute-by-minute programming decisions.

The Logic Goes Like This...

PPM's offer minute-by-minute feedback on who's listening to what. When you overlay what a station plays on who starts, stops, and stays listening, you get a good view of what songs and other station elements are, in Arbitron lingo, "sticky." That is, what programming content is good and what's bad.

Let's assume there's enough sample to make programming conclusions - which I doubt there is. After all, in Arbitron's Philadelphia test there were 789 average daily panelists being surveyed. Even if they're all listening at once to any of Philly's 26 above-the-line stations, that's only about 30 persons per station. And since there are lots of reasons people will tune in and out besides what the station does to provoke it, how much reliability does this data really have? But let's assume it's completely reliable. Then why shouldn't you use it to program by?

Great Radio isn't Minute-by-Minute

Great and successful Radio stations - in fact, all great and successful media brands - are much more than the sum total of every minute of programming. They are emotional relationships with the audience forged over time. To paraphrase Saatchi & Saatchi CEO Kevin Roberts, using PPM as a programming aid will give you a station that relies on the accumulation of past experiences rather than the potential of future ones.

Arbitron's data shows that shorter songs have less tune-out than longer ones and more familiar songs less tune-out than new ones. Taken to its not at all laughable extreme, the programming implication is to play only familiar, short songs. Never anything new - and certainly never Stairway to Heaven. It's hard to imagine such a strategy creating compelling radio, but it's easy to imagine it creating least-objectionable radio. But is that why listeners tune in KROQ? Is that why they sample Howard Stern? Abusing research to round off every edge will pave the road to mediocrity. Commodities love company.

For Proof, Look to TV

One of the funniest shows on TV is BBC's Golden Globe winner, "The Office." Recently, the forthcoming American version received NBC's lowest test scores for any comedy series EVER. But what's flawed, the show or the system? Anyone who watches new Fall shows come and go by the schedule-load knows the answer to that one.

A great morning show or a great radio station is an alchemy of magic moments constructed from the raw materials of "genius" and "just okay." Getting the former requires some of the latter. Every minute of the Sopranos isn't great, but the show itself is. Every second on KROQ isn't great, but the station itself is. When you obsess on minute-by-minute feedback you're substituting science for art and mistaking the trees for the forest. As the philosopher said, "Be careful lest in casting out your devils that you cast out the best thing that's in you."

Portable People Meter Fear and Loathing

Arbitron demonstrated some ways Radio Programmers can use data from their Portable People Meters (PPM's) during last week's Radio & Records convention, and some of their conclusions are destined to open a Pandora's box of trouble.

I heard about this second-hand, but I was told they were demonstrating how you could actually measure the drop-off in audience when an extraordinarily long song is played (e.g., Stairway to Heaven). You can also measure the loss when a new and unfamiliar song is played - and chart how listenership grows for such songs as familiarity grows. This way, they suggest, you can use PPM's as a form of new music research.

All very interesting, but I'm wondering a couple things:

1. When Arbitron's diaries can't accurately show how many people in total even listen to a given station from one month to the next, why should we place any credence in the ability of their PPM's to predict listenership accurately one minute to the next?

2. Doesn't the result about long songs suggest we should play the shortest possible songs only? Is this, in the long run, really going to give listeners what they want?

3. Doesn't the result about new music suggest not only that we can measure when a new song is familiar enough - but that we're actually best off by not playing ANY new songs? Again, is this really going to give listeners what they want?

Using the PPM the way Arbitron has suggested may suit their lobbying efforts - it may be sexy and persuasive - but it's a reductionist view of the listening experience that will do our brands no good in the long run.

In that long run, imperfection and genius go hand in hand. And one does not exist without the other.

Here's the Half of your Marketing that Works

A No-Nonsense Marketing Smart Tip
June 24, 2004

At the Radio and Records convention today, Mercury and Point to Point Direct Marketing present the results of a research study aimed at showing you how to spend your marketing dollars more effectively. This is an ALL NEW sequel to the project we did last year, and many of the results will surprise you. For the full report, visit the Mercury website and download it for free. Here are a few headlines:

Outdoor is the Best Advertising Vehicle for Creating Trial

Got news? Trying to win new Cume? Before plunking down your hard-earned cash on a TV campaign try flooding the market with outdoor. Nearly 40% of radio listeners who recall seeing radio outdoor say they tried a station because of it. That beats telemarketing, TV, and Direct Mail by a wide margin.

If TSL is your goal, then Direct Mail is still the most powerful way to get listeners tuning in longer.

The Kinds of Direct Mail and Contests that Work Best

Listeners are most likely to open and look over a CD, a box, or a big color postcard. And the content that most appeals to them includes: A list of big events in town, fantasy-fulfillment contests, Coupons/special offers, and a contest with a big-money prize. Also, note cards or greeting cards test VERY well among Women - and very poorly among Men.

If you don't encourage online signup for contests, you're making a big mistake - more than 50% of respondents would prefer to register for contests this way. Meanwhile SECRET contests are more compelling than PUBLIC ones.

What about Frequent Listener Clubs and New Media?

20% of Radio listeners have signed up for a station Frequent Listener club. What will most induce listeners to join the club? A free CD with the year's top hits, points for listening which can be redeemed for prizes, and station logo merchandise.

Meanwhile you can dispel the myth that most listeners are technologically backward. More than 60% of listeners and nearly 70% of "likely diarykeepers" use e-mail often. About 20% use instant messaging and 10% use text messaging. But note: 18-24's are two to three times more likely to use IM and TM than the average listener. Have you tapped into your audience via these new media yet? What are you waiting for?

"It has got to stop or the medium will bleed"

That's how Inside Radio reported the comments of ad buyer Natalie Swed Stone on the topic of long radio commercial pods.

She says they're a turnoff to buyers and advertisers "Commercials are lost in a pod and probably no one is hearing the spot."

MindShare senior partner David Marans says young listeners he's seen in recent focus groups are "very hostile" to long spot sets.

They also criticized the dismal caliber of radio creative which, they say, has "chased national advertisers away" from Radio.

So how are we to read all this?

First, it hardly seems surprising that the advertising community is in a huff about any configuration of spots which clusters them in long sets. My research shows that listeners love this because they can skip the whole cluster if they want to. Advertisers hate it, of course, for the same reason.

But still, why does Natalie say "probably no one is hearing the spot." Doesn't she KNOW that a spot is or isn't effective based on the RESULTS of the advertising campaign? And you don't mean to suggest that buyers are spending advertiser money with no regard for the effectiveness of the campaign in driving sales, do you Natalie? Do you mean to suggest that agencies are more interested in the placement of their spot in a set than whether the advertising actually works??

If I were an advertiser you can place my spot anywhere you want, just as long as I get results for my money. Or doesn't that matter, Natalie, in the grand "creative" scheme of things?

Second, the point about focus group respondents being "very hostile" to long spot sets. This is a conclusion that is heavily biased to favor the people doing the research who, themselves, are likely to be against such long spot-sets. My own research has completely contradicted this conclusion - when the opinions of the audience take precedence over those of the researchers.

There is a tradeoff, folks: Either fewer long stopsets or more shorter ones. My guess: Mindshare never presented that tradeoff. Instead, it was all about "longer or shorter: better or worse." Lovely.

Third, I'm not surprised national advertisers would show disdain for the truly poor quality of most radio creative. But, wait...Isn't it the job of agencies to make this creative high-quality enough to justify the spots in the first place? And aren't the agencies retained by the advertisers themselves?

Isn't this the equivalent of me calling my own baby "ugly"?

The More Things Change...

From Walter Sabo, esteemed head of SABOmedia, reprinted with permission:

CBS airs shocking Sunday night show. FCC, Congress, Public, outraged. Action demanded.

By Walter Sabo

The CBS network aired a broadcast event that caused massive reaction from the public, the FCC and Congress. It was on a Sunday, at a time when families were gathered and people were relaxed; vulnerable to media intrusion.

The event was so upsetting that immediately, all people involved in the broadcast were grilled by network staff and not allowed to go home for a day.

It was covered on the front page of every newspaper including THE NEW YORK TIMES. Editorials ran in every major paper. It was the talk of the nation.

An end to irresponsible broadcasting was announced by the FCC and Congress.

A demand for guidelines about what was appropriate and what wasn’t was debated in Congress and the FCC. Congressional hearings were demanded.

The broadcast inspired the belief that some form of government censorship was appropriate.

Among media moguls, self-regulation became the word of the day. Broadcasters feverishly rewrote their code of ethics regarding live broadcasts. They tried to determine how to warn the public of content that might not be appropriate for all audiences even if the event was live.

Many broadcasters feared that if they did not control such future events, they would lose their licenses. Others demanded that the FCC start to exercise the powers they had.

It became a time of fear in media management. Stations cut back on certain types of broadcasts, personalities, and worked hard to protect the audience from the capricious nature of live broadcasts.

Nothing in live broadcasting would ever be the same. New guidelines were given announcers for covering breaking news events and entertainment shows.

Janet Jackson’s breast incident? No, that was the response to the 1938, Orson Welles' broadcast of War of the Worlds. Panic. Evacuations. Public uproar.

Then, unlike now, at least one company showed bravery. Campbell’s Soup. Until that night, Welles couldn’t get a sponsor. When Campbells saw the response---good and bad---they picked up the sponsorship. History suggests it’s always a good time to be brave.

You’ve read about the War of the Worlds before but you’ve never read the outrage it caused at the FCC and the revolution in broadcast regulations. You can in a book called: Manipulating the Ether. The Power of Broadcast Radio in the 30’s in America. By Robert J Brown

Is your Station simply a Brand - or a "Lovemark"?

From Brand Autopsy:

What comes after brands? Lovemarks do. So says Kevin Roberts, CEO of Saatchi Saatchi Worldwide and author of the recently published book, Lovemarks: The Future Beyond Brands.

In other words, brands merely fulfill needs while Lovemarks fulfill needs and desires.

To put YOUR station through the "Lovemark" test and see how you score, go here.