Radio's Real Advantages Go Ignored

Sometimes in our effort to 'keep up' with all the new technology and the 'cool of new' we forget a lot of the real advantages our media has.

Radio is simple to operate. For the most part you turn it on, simply adjust the volume and select the station from your favorites already punched in. No need to download anything, remember complicated web addresses, or try typing words on the numeric keyboard.

It's portable. You can take it anywhere and get solid reception for the most part. The radios are as small as I Pods or big as a wall - take your pick.

Quality. Compared to the small speakers in a laptop or always using earbuds the quality is really much better than most streams and reception is really more reliable.

We know the technology. A 5 year old can work the average car radio with little instruction. Even the 60 year old computer novice can easily get the radio to work.

There's a long ways to go to get WiFi everywhere and reliable. Look at cell phones where they have been trying to get a reliable network up for over 20 years. They still struggle, as we've all experienced, and still have one of their big advertising points around reception. What do you think it will take to WiFi the world? It could go even slower. We don't have the frequency bandwidth to auction off that we used to.

In the end perhaps radio's problem with the image we have now with the younger audience and with clients of not being 'cutting edge', or 'hip' lies in our presentation both on the air and on the streets.

On the air we haven't really evolved much - the same tactics, formats, and imaging styles have been around for decades. The look of the new radios isn't much to marvel at either - this is one of the big keys in the failure of HD radio to catch on. You don't see much new in radios, like more display screens for the RDS data. How about a system to send pictures and more data on the RDS system - just having a few text lines is very limited. While we can't push the set makers much we can work with the on-air sound and start exploring new imaging, formatics, music rotations, personalities, and promotion tactics.

On the client side radio seems to be trying to do some Internet integration into the packages and maybe a few new power point tricks in the presentations, but is that our real advantage? No doubt we need to integrate the power of our brand into the Internet, but it might be more important to sell our real advantage. That is the large reach we still have. Radio reaches over 90% of the market and it covers a specific territory. A local business or location can rely on radio to deliver an audience that is within the reach of the store or stores. Not in Russia. Is there a great website that reaches that much of the market where you can advertise on? Maybe the Google start page, but the only thing on it is their logo and the blank box to search with.

It's also a big audience. PPM has pretty much proven that you can take your CUME audience and double it for a conservative estimate of the real reach of your station. For most that's a big number. Perhaps we need a new number here - instead of the CPP or CPM how about CPC (Cost Per Cume). Take a market like Madison WI where the top cuming station is around 90,000 in Arbitron without PPM - the number in PPM is probably closer to 200,000. That's nearly half of the 1/2 million that live in the metro. Even at $200 a spot the cost per Cumer is $.00125. Now that's pretty cheap - probably less than any Google Adword that hits that many people in your market.

I know selling with CUME is probably harder than doing our pitches in Latin, but CUME will be evolving to the be the new advantage of radio and perhaps the new currency of selling tactics. It's going to take re-trainng the buyers, clients, and most importantly the sales teams. Cume is going to be our new friend and we need to learn how to use it in sales.

We have a lot going for us in this new era, but we need to get our confidence back and make the most of our positive points as we also explore ways to work with the new media opportunities. Right now our industry looks like we are surrendering and whining towards depression. Let's get our head out of the sand and realize that we're still above ground. Let's vow to make radio about the future not the past.

Congratulations to THE BEAR - Edmonton

Winning awards is always great. It's even better when you know the winners and have watch them work hard to put together an exceptional station and watch it win in ratings and see that revenue graph go up.

At the recent Canadian Music Week convention The Bear from Edmonton pulled in both the Best Rock Station for the year and also their morning show - The Paul Brown Show - rakes in the Best Morning Show award. It's rare for a station to walk away with both, the Morning Show award covers all formats and there is lots of talent in markets like Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Montreal, etc.

Just got back from spending a few days with the Bear team and while there was some celebration and local press - it's right back to work. Congratulations.

It's About The AUDIENCE

Ever been listening to the radio and heard the jock talk all about their world. "They were off on a vacation and are a little off tonight since they are jet lagged." "They have a dog that just wants to go out every 2 hours." Do you really care????

Probably not, but we hear these kind of breaks all the time. As if exposing little details of someones personal life is so important or entertaining to the audience that they will hang around the break, through the commercials and perhaps some songs they don't like just to hear all about someones little personal issues?

While great personalities can get away with a few tid-bits about themselves as antidotes in a bit or setting we all hear moments where the interpretation of 'being a personality' means revealing more about your personal life. As if that's entertainment? It might be if you are such a captivating person or star that your every move was entertaining. Sorry, but it's probably not as entertaining to the listener as you may think.

Remember to the listener it's about THEM - not you. If your experience or story can somehow entertain them or be funny it's worth it. If not it's just more dribble in a world filled with dribble.

Yes, you are important and you have the mic but the audience is who you have to entertain. The people on the air who become personalities look first at the audience and then relate to them. Have you looked first at the audience???? Ask that first.

The Year of 25-34s FINALLY!!!!

In this week's Arbitron Advisory Board meetings build up it looks like the main issue on the table is SAMPLE. Advisory Board leader Chuck DuCoty sums up the agenda in his press conference call - 'Sample Sample Sample.' Chuck (a fine programmer before he crossed over to the GM and now COO chair) hits it on the head and now it looks like Arbitron is at least ready to go to work.

Arbitorn Exec Pierre Bouvard has now declared 2008 as the 'The Year of 25-34s.' This after declaring that Arbitron's recent campaign to get 18-24 returns up was improving. But, most of that was centered around the PPM markets in Philly and Houston. Even after PPM rolls out there will probably be around 200 markets still looking at diary returns, with it's weak data collection system, and need for more annual sample (remember the PPM sample mostly stays around for a year or more and diary keepers are only in for a week).

So let's take a look at the Spring 2007 National Sample report from the Arbitron Radio Nationwide pdf on their website (look at it here). In the sample report here are the Spring 07 sample results:

Arbitron has a long ways to go even if the goal is only to get into the 70 index range for Men 18-24 and the news is even worse in 25-34 Men. Realize that that means they are only delivering a C- sample (if we were grading it in a High School format where 75 is a C). Just barely passing the class and being able to stay on the team - not enough to get accepted at anything but a trade school.

Pierre claims that the PPM sample in Philly is now above 70 in 18-24 Men but there they are pulling out all the stops. They are going door to door!!!! Also adding a lot more cash to carry the PPM and calling and calling till it hurts. Will they make this level of effort without PPM on the line? In your market?

The sample index problems we see here are not new. It's been an issue since the 80s - over 20 years. At first it was just those pesky 18-24 Men, but now it's even worse in 25-34 and Women have also joined the non response team.

You have to reach out beyond the land line telephone. This group are the first to move to cell only or ignore the land line households. They are quickly heading to 50% unreachable by Arbitron's land line sample system.

It's time for new answers and I bet Chuck would agree that we are not seeing many options that have much of a chance to impact this crucial area.

Regular readers here have see a few posts on some ideas - I'm sure there are more out there. Somehow they have to get to the surface very soon. The agencies are already looking at Arbitron with a raised eyebrow (to say the least) and all the PPM developments and publicity only make the diary system even more suspect. Add the bad sample to the weak diary data collection and this is quickly becoming a guess - not an estimate.

How Radio and TV Are Better Than Google

It seems like Radio ad sales strategy has been trying to find a way to compete with the Google adwords and click through models and for the most part coming up with few if any answers.

The system of just paying for the 'click through' to your site from other sites where your 'Google little bitty Ad' might show up has some advantages. The biggest is that you only pay for the exposure that actually causes someone to visit your site or on-line store. The other vehicle is bidding on adwords that might pop up in a search so you are placed higher, or first, in the search and gain the click through.

While it's great that you only pay for the advertising that works or that you pay to gain a leg up on your 'world wide' competition. Does it really boost your business? Does it create any demand for your product or service? Does it build your brand or craft an image for a business? Surely people have built a business with these tools, but is it that they were first? Did they go after a niche that suddenly hit? I bet if you took a few thousand and invested in all the tools and did one of those 'drop ship items from China' business models we see all over the internet you'd probably just be out a few thousand.

Radio has been building demand for products, building brands and crafting images for clients for many years. It's been proven year after year for many different clients and businesses as long as they get enough exposure to 'crack the ice' and that they have enough creativity in their message to get into the audience's head they can build demand and awareness for product or service.

Just getting someone to notice you is not enough - you have to have a message and that takes more than placement on a search with 1 million sites returned in 2.4 seconds. It takes more than a few sentences in little black type on the side column of the ever busy web pages we see. It takes more than a few banner ads that are flashing away or the pop up that everyone figured out how to block a long time ago.

You have to really establish communication with the audience. Radio can do it. TV can also do it, but at what cost and how high is the creativity bar set when you have to produce a mini-movie to stand out in the media? Radio can be very creative, efficient, and powerful in developing brands and demand. You just have to learn how to use it.

Has radio really carried this message home in the light of all the new media competition? Based on most of the feedback from many sources from Wall Street to the quarterly sale projections it doesn't look like it.

On to another topic - Jim Cramer's Mad Money rants on radio recently have been rather interesting. I catch a show here and there and sometimes in my 'random sample' he takes calls that include advice on the Satellite Stocks. He's usually pulling out the BULL and hitting the big horn when they call. He's put himself on the line here. We've also seen the merger issues with XM and Sirius seem to take forever as they passed the 1 year anniversary in their request. Many, including Creamer accuse the NAB, Congress and the Election year and perhaps some of it may be true - who knows what goes on in Washington off the floor these days.

But, you have to wonder if Cramer also has something at stake here - his reputation. If the merger goes through the stocks will go up for both Satellite casters and his predictions and reputation will improve. Even if he doesn't have anything invested here - his reputation is somewhat of an investment given the higher profile he seems to be striving for every day. Watch the Today show - Cramer is there a lot. He's got books, the show, - he's probably jealous of TV star rocket ride that Rachael Ray is pulling off. It's more than just being an investment guru for Cramer - it's chasing Oprah.

All Christmas - It Took GUTS

We've all seen the success of going All Christmas Music for AC/Oldies and even Country radio. The numbers show impressive gains year after year. It's become a rather obvious strategy that has spread to nearly every market in the land. The AC format across the land shows up with significantly bigger shares in the Fall and it's due to the tactic. The most recent format analysis from the Fall 07 book shows around a 10% increase for ALL/AC shares over the Summer shares, but if you just pull out the Mainstream AC stations (leaving out urban, hot AC, and Modern AC - who mostly avoid the Christmas tactic) you have a 17% share increase.

I can remember when it was first conceived, working in the Clear Channel VP Programming world we had a gathering of the 20 or so 'minds' and the strategy idea came up to work with the AC stations to go all Christmas. It wasn't the company mandate at the time, in 2001, and we had to go out and try to introduce the idea to the fleet of AC Programmers and Market Managers.

The problem with AC at the time was a lot of pretty successful stations that required a lot of marketing. The format itself was also fairly slow moving in adapting anything. Great care, debate and thought went into any innovation from rotations to music breath to the style of the air staff. The environment of the station was the 'key to success' and any changes in it were often viewed as dangerous at best.

At that meeting there were only a few examples of stations that went all Christmas in November. St Louis had a classical station, Grand Rapids had the #3 AC station go all Christmas and maybe a few others scattered around the markets. While there were solid success stories many of the programmers and managers we presented the idea to thought 'this won't work here.'

The feeling from many was it will ruin the station and push off all the listeners who like the variety, tempo, era flow and music blend. We also didn't know what Christmas songs worked and in the end there are only 50-75 big hits here so the repetition could be grueling.

Even New York was not eager to use the strategy. The feeling was that New York had too many Jewish listeners and they don't celebrate the holiday in the same way most of the Christmas songs do. NYC also had tons of revenue and no one wanted to upset that apple cart.

We all know the story now. AC has made Christmas music a staple and it draws tons of cume to the stations without tons of marketing.

The lesson for all of us from this, regardless of your format, is to keep your mind open to new ideas. Jumping on any new idea, song, imaging style, marketing tactic, or jock could be the 'killer card' it could also be the 'big flop' and ruin the 'secret sauce' that's central to the station's success.

You have to evaluate the idea carefully, but don't be too careful and watch it beat you down the road. Yes, you have to 'know when to hold them and when to fold them' but don't make your first reaction always to 'fold.' Many of our formats need to invest in new ideas, strategies, and tactics. With all the new media competition standing on the past treasure chest won't cut it and we all know it. It's time to innovate and look at new ideas.

Handling Sex With Class

I always marvel at David Letterman's show and how well he handles guests, topics and even controversy - and it's also a very funny and entertaining show. Often when meeting with morning shows examples pop up from Letterman's show that really help the talent see how to entertain the audience.

I was watching recently and Dave had on the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue cover model. Dave managed to turn the segment into a pretty sexy moment on the show, but he didn't even get close to being crude, un classy or to risque for the mass audience. Take a look at the segment that covers a lot of topics that we often hear (or heard) on shows like Stern but watch how Dave manages the territory:

Instead of making it shocking - he makes it funny yet still titillating.




Also wanted to pass on a piece from Jaye Albright's excellent Breakfast Blog. Jaye consults mostly country stations and had a great piece on a recent Deloitte and Touche study on the media usage from the 4 big generations. It's clearly worth the read -

The Random Sample - No Longer Random or Accurate

For years in research we have relied on the "Random Sample." It's the core of statistical based research that relies on a sample instead of a census. We all know the theory that in a world of limited options we only have to talk to sampling of the population to get a confident estimate of their behavior.

When the Telephone came along sampling became easier. Suddenly research became pretty simple. Get a phone bank together and get a list of the telephone numbers in the community then put together a random formula to grab the names and call away. At first it was easy as everyone had a phone, very few had private or unlisted numbers, answering machines were rather complicated new fangaled equipment and caller ID wasn't available.

Now we are in a world where the land line phone is a relic. Over the last 20 years the database has become torn apart by more and more unlisted numbers, don't call lists, over tele-marketing, caller ID, answering machines, and the biggest issue THE CELL PHONE. So where do we go from here in research?

Perhaps the first realization we need to make is that a simple random sample is really no longer available. In most of our research we stratify the sample in some manner, perhaps making sure we hit a sample goals. In Arbitron we have ethnic groups, population distribution across the market and demographic groups involved in various sample goals. In our radio product research we also limit ourselves to target audiences and P1 preferences based on the goals of the project.

So why are we still clinging to the idea that we need to have a random sample in research for it to be accurate? What we are really doing in nearly all reserach today is building panels. Groups of respondents that fit some picture of the world we are looking at - realizing we can't see the whole picture on any subject in today's world.

I bring all of this up because we need to start looking at a different model for our panels. It will have to start with Arbitron which is still clinging to the old land line phone database.

Now Arbitron hopes to get a little wider view from the shrinking land line phone view from going back to home address based databases in combo with the land line database. By comparing the 2 they can find out who are the cell phone onlies and try to get them into the panel by going around the phone.

The problem here is that while we all probably have a mail box it also suffers from many of the same problems we have in using the telephone. We screen the mail closely and quickly sort non important items and Email competes with the mail box for a lot of communication needs.

We're going to have to reach out and build a complete database and it's going to take more than an outdated phone and address list. We need to communicate with the audience and the sample on the internet - it's their new community and finding sampling tools here needs to be explored quickly. It's a fast moving world and unless Arbitron starts to experiment here and move a lot quicker we will continue to live in the past with the audience estimates we sell with.

There are many experiments to tackle including building panels using email, text messages, social networks, and reward based incentives. Yet, we seem to find the radio research community looking at the web options with an evil doubting eye. Look at Neilsen's web site research where they are purely soliciting the panel online. You apply to join up and are rewarded if chosen to put a collector on you browser to relay your activity back to Neilsen for their data. In their TV research they gather the panel by door to door solicitations, the phone and via email. And once you are in the panel you stay for years much like PPM.

How about building a big panel that we pick from for the diary system that will still be in place for 150 to 200 markets for at least the next 5-10 years. If we had a nicely proportioned panel of 10,000 in many of the markets where we have 1000 diaries in a report we could draw from that sample and suddenly it would be easy to find enough males or Hispanics or 25-34s. We have a group that knows how to complete the survey, is better compensated (since we don't have to go to all the expense of random dialing through the whole database), and reliable to respond. A lot better answer than striving for a Random Sample in a world where no sample is random any more.