"Youth" vs." The Uninformed"

[wadio]

Is it really "youth" advertisers want to reach?

There's a program on WBBR in the late afternoons called, "Bloomberg West." It's actually a Bloomberg TV simulcast but it's a great show and it also works well on radio. If you watch the TV show you'll see a bunch of very young people reporting on business and discussing technology. Tech is a big part of Bloomberg West.

Now, how can that be?

We're told constantly that the radio industry, in response to Madison Avenue, is seeking young listeners, and it's assumed that these demos are drawn like magnets to Hot Talk, celebrity talk, an overload of sports, and bathroom humor. Clear Channel buys into this assumption bigtime with Elliot Segal -- a relatively old guy who panders to the target demo in the DC area. We had the unfortunate opportunity to sample his show in NYC until today.

But what's the real target? Is it "youth" or is it really the "uninformed?" Segal's show is aimed at the youth stereotype. Plenty of young people are smart, responsible individuals who are starting new careers and new families. They care about the world around them. They're interested in more than tasteless jokes and pop culture.

Segal's schtick does attract mainly younger listeners -- that's true. But it's my contention that it attracts the "uninformed" end of the spectrum. I believe advertisers really want "uninformed" listeners because they're the ones who are most susceptible to advertising pitches. "Youth" is simply a code word for "uninformed."

The same could be said of pitches aimed at the very elderly. Radio is a good medium for selling wrinkle creams, miracle cures and shaky investments to the elderly "uninformed."

Unfortunately it's the smart, active, informed listeners of any age who are being ignored by advertisers and therefore by programmers.

 

[TheBigA]

And so? What's the solution? More dumber older people?

 

[umfan]

The solution would be a radio organization that, from top to bottom, recognizes that all demos can be sold profitably, but success cannot be achieved by setting the station to autopilot and placing national ads and hoping that local businesses will, on their own, see value in spending dollars advertising on your station. It takes management that recognizes the value in a smart sales force that hits the pavement, can sell the concept of advertising on radio and signing up businesses of multiple sizes in doing just that. But this requires local engagement, something not likely to be had when the radio conglomerates have one person trying to run multiple stations within a cluster, and a salesforce that doesn't know how to sell the formats they are assigned to.

 

[TheBigA]

The solution would be a radio organization that, from top to bottom, recognizes that all demos can be sold profitably, but success cannot be achieved by setting the station to autopilot and placing national ads and hoping that local businesses will, on their own, see value in spending dollars advertising on your station.

I don't know any radio station or company that doesn't actively make pitches to all potential advertisers, regardless of product or target demo. The brick wall, from my experience, is at the advertiser and agency level, all of whom have their own negative opinions about radio, and aren't open to new ideas. Woe is the station that isn't #1, 2 or 3 in their market, because advertisers won't even take meetings with you. It's a real battle when they won't even take your call.

 

[wadio]

I don't know any radio station or company that doesn't actively make pitches to all potential advertisers, regardless of product or target demo. The brick wall, from my experience, is at the advertiser and agency level, all of whom have their own negative opinions about radio, and aren't open to new ideas. Woe is the station that isn't #1, 2 or 3 in their market, because advertisers won't even take meetings with you. It's a real battle when they won't even take your call.

Then how is it that WBBR has many of the same advertisers as WCBS -- high end jewelers, auto dealers and high end appliances, for example. Not to mention Geico (naturally.) Obviously they're not getting the same spot rate as WCBS but these advertisers did take the WBBR sales rep's calls.

 

[TheBigA]

Then how is it that WBBR has many of the same advertisers as WCBS

Bloomberg is selling a platform. Not just a low-rated AM station. From what I hear, the radio station is a very small part of the platform. And a lot of major radio owners are taking notice and are now doing the same thing. It's the next big thing in sales. If all you're selling is spots on the radio, you've got a really tough job.

 

[wadio]

Bloomberg is selling a platform. Not just a low-rated AM station. From what I hear, the radio station is a very small part of the platform.

Correct. And advertising (except for very small advertisers) is always a campaign as opposed to a single media buy. The "platform" is an attempt by the media companies to design the campaign, thereby keeping it all in house.

Talk Radio used to be the place to reach smart, informed, well educated, affluent listeners. It could -- and should -- be that component of a platform. How things have changed.

 

[Avid Listener]

Correct. And advertising (except for very small advertisers) is always a campaign as opposed to a single media buy. The "platform" is an attempt by the media companies to design the campaign, thereby keeping it all in house.

Talk Radio used to be the place to reach smart, informed, well educated, affluent listeners. It could -- and should -- be that component of a platform. How things have changed.

Maybe someone discovered that smart, informed, well educated affluent listeners tend to resist changing product brands. Advertising doesn't work as well on them as it does on those who haven't been around as long.

 

[TheBigA]

Talk Radio used to be the place to reach smart, informed, well educated, affluent listeners. It could -- and should -- be that component of a platform. How things have changed.

They don't listen. If they did, the talk would be much different. Smart, informed, educated, affluent listeners choose public radio.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I'm not sure this observation really fits in this conversation... but I think it does... if I can word it correctly.

The "turning point" on this whole issue of adults vs. youth may be the era of the little war over in Vietnam.

Up until then, we had tended to be a nation that followed a lot of Western European social concepts. The 'elders', the adults in the room were to be respected, and do not try to go against them. O.K.: You are young and you have opinions. Some day you will be an adult and then you can HAVE opinions and you can DISPLAY your opinions!

The pot boiled over when Vietnam became such a dry, volatile, tinder-box of explosive opinions.

And from that day on, there was this surge of thinking that goes like this: "I may be young, but I have an opinion, and my vote at age 23 is counted exactly the same as that 63 year old person in line just ahead of me."

Many a corporation has gone through wrenching management changes as the rules about "young people should keep quiet while the gray-beards make our choices for the company." Company after company has come to that tipping point when the balance changed, and young thinkers AND YOUNG CUSTOMERS were not only accepted... but now seem to be The Primary drivers of our society.

Market by market, agency by agency, buyer by buyer, media by media, this transition has taken place. Now we live in this world where are no longer sure what the rules are, we are no longer sure who makes the rules, and we are no long sure when the rules will change again.

Trying to manage a radio station through this brave new world must be a real adrenalin-rush some days. "If I push the wrong button (make the wrong policy choice) will this whole thing blow up and take me out with it?"

PHILOSOPHICAL MODE: set to OFF

 

[wadio]

They don't listen. If they did, the talk would be much different.

It's the other way around ... the talk needs to be much different for them to listen. They used to listen. In the 1980s it was much different. Limbaugh was much different.

Smart, informed, educated, affluent listeners choose public radio.

"Intellectuals" listen to public radio. Not quite the same thing.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Smart, informed, educated, affluent listeners choose public radio.

And if you don't believe that, just ask a public radio listener. They'll tell you how much smarter, more educated and affluent than you that they are.

 

[Avid Listener]

They don't listen. If they did, the talk would be much different. Smart, informed, educated, affluent listeners choose public radio.

Actually, smart, informed, educated, affluent listeners stick a CD of good music into their dashboards, unless they need a traffic report.

(Stereotypes don't really help move a conversation forward. But if you live by the stereotype, expect to have it turned against you.)

 

[TheBigA]

It's the other way around ... the talk needs to be much different for them to listen.

But the numbers are much lower. And radio is all about attracting the largest potential audience to your station. There are a whole lot more uninformed poor people.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Actually, smart, informed, educated, affluent listeners stick a CD of good music into their dashboards, unless they need a traffic report.

(Stereotypes don't really help move a conversation forward. But if you live by the stereotype, expect to have it turned against you.)

Considering the best talk stations of any stripe are getting maybe 5% of an audience, your answer is most likely the right one. This idea that people who listen to public radio are somehow superior to people who listen to commercial talk is just ridiculous.

 

[wadio]

But the numbers are much lower. And radio is all about attracting the largest potential audience to your station. There are a whole lot more uninformed poor people.

Hey, I don't disagree with you! I believe "the uninformed" are the largest and most lucrative target for advertisers. Nowhere in my OP did I say anything different. But that's not the topic.

My point is that I believe the quest for "young demos" is a smokescreen for what advertisers really want, which is an audience consisting largely of gullible airheads. It's not PC to say so, so instead they identify the age group with the largest subgroup of their real target.

But there's room for more than a single target. If you're offering a cluster to advertisers it probably doesn't hurt to have some informed, affluent bodies in the mix. When Rush began his talk show he offered that -- an alternative for people who were tired of hearing the same few hundred songs over and over, not even presented in an intelligent way. Talk radio was an advertising success when it was smart -- when Rush was smart.

A couple of things to keep in mind, I believe:

- Even in the "golden age" of talk radio not all show were great -- far from it. There was a handful of really great shows and those are the ones we remember.
- Money can be made from exploiting a niche. Not every fast food joint has to be McDonalds even though the segment they serve is "what it's all about" in the fast food industry.

I think I understand the realities of the radio business but I'm not quite so pessimistic about the future of talk.

 

[TheBigA]

My point is that I believe the quest for "young demos" is a smokescreen for what advertisers really want, which is an audience consisting largely of gullible airheads. It's not PC to say so, so instead they identify the age group with the largest subgroup of their real target.

That's one way of looking at it. Have you ever tried to sell something to a person who doesn't want to buy? It's a brick wall. The first lesson they teach you in sales school is only sell to people interested in buying. Otherwise you're wasting your time. Advertisers want to reach potential customers for their products. If you know of a 75 year old college professor who's an active shopper, advertisers want to reach them. It's not about prejudice, but about making sales.

Talk radio right now is still an advertising success because listeners are paying attention to what's on the radio. But radio has had to diversify what constitutes "talk," so you've seen an explosion in SPORTS talk radio, which gets younger demos, gets them paying attention, and succeeds with advertisers. Are they affluent or intelligent? It doesn't matter as long as they listen.

 

[Avid Listener]

Life would be so much simpler if the entire science of sales and marketing could be boiled down to something as pithy as, "only sell to people interested in buying". The fact is, there are many, many books written on the art and science of convincing people to want to buy something. Look at the entire new categories of products that people are now buying that they never knew existed a few decades ago. Was anyone really interested in buying feminine hygiene sprays until some clever ad agency created a series of commercials that created a demand for that product? Radio does rent audiences to advertisers. That's correct. And a big audience is better than a small audience, all other things being equal. Trouble is, all other things are seldom ever equal. Average age is one factor. Affluence (or lack thereof) is another factor. Any characteristic that can be used to describe any degree of categorization of the audience can be a factor.

Every year, the people who study advertising and marketing learn new things that they add to their previous knowledge. They get better and better informed. And they acquire better and better tools to study the audiences and their buying habits. Someone who has been in the business for 20 years, learning new things as he gains more experience, will be much better at figuring out how to participate in the business. That's true no matter what part of the business you're in. Whether it's attracting an audience, selling that audience to the right buyer, or picking the right seller to buy from if you're the buyer, the folks who've stayed on top of how things are changing will do the best. Those who learned all that they're ever going to know 20 years ago, but learned nothing new since then, won't do as well.

So, anyone who attempts to reduce the complex issues of what audiences to try to attract to something as simplistic as "Youth" vs." The Uninformed" will probably fail, regardless of what answer he finds. It's all just way more complicated than that.

 

[TheBigA]

Life would be so much simpler if the entire science of sales and marketing could be boiled down to something as pithy as, "only sell to people interested in buying".

Let me put it this way: It's really hard to sell something to a person after they've slammed the door in your face or hung up on you. The whole process is about preventing that from happening, so you can GET to the real reason you're speaking to them. An early book on the subject was "Getting To Yes." And yes, many more have been written. But at the end of the day, you can't sell ice to an eskimo, and you can't sell pimple cream to an 85 year old man. It's not really that complicated. It's really just common sense.

 

[wadio]

So, anyone who attempts to reduce the complex issues of what audiences to try to attract to something as simplistic as "Youth" vs." The Uninformed" will probably fail, regardless of what answer he finds. It's all just way more complicated than that.

I was totally with you until you made the above statement. I believe you missed the point of my original post.

What I suggested is that it's NOT as simple as the conventional wisdom that advertisers are obsessed with "youth." Age demographics are only ONE element of deciding who to target. My theory is that what radio advertisers really want is listeners who will accept pretty much anything as gospel. You can see it in the dumbing down of programming which I believe is actually helping to deliver that audience. You can also see it in commercials that tout "lifestyles" instead of features and benefits. But it's all done in the guise of targeting "younger" (read, less informed) listeners.

I could be wrong but I'm not buying the stereotype that all young people fit into the categories of uninformed and gullible.