Too many commercials!

[landtuna]

As stated, it was created using PPM data in 48 markets, so it was simple number crunching and not subject to the usual margin of error that would have existed if it were a survey (please note, that alone nullifies your whole first paragraph's arguments, as you made the false assumption that this was a survey). Since PPM was only in the largest markets when this study was released, there were choices available to the listeners. They simply chose not to utilize them.

You are still trying to rebut hard facts with anecdotal replies:

Please understand, that isn't changing anyone's opinion. All it does is give a warm fuzzy feeling to those who already agree with you ... and they aren't right either.

It doesn't matter to me that anyone's opinion is changed. I am perfectly happy in my choice and methods for watching/listening and, as I am reminded constantly, I am not in anyone's demo any longer so it matters not. I would be far more impressed if the survey's were done by a disinterested third party and not a company which depends on the results to remain in business. I am not saying the results are fixed but there is an aura of duplicity there.

The bottom line though is that radio and TV (and even most of the Internet) have decided I bring nothing to the party so I feel not the least bit guilty of taking their products for nothing. It's a tough world. It is tougher if you're stupid. I'm not saying the suits are stupid but they sure seem limited in their vision.

 

[landtuna]

That should read "tabulation of minute by minute...." as there was really no analysis involved... just data crunching.

And I will once again repeat that PPM has no way of ascertaining whether the wearer is actually listening or receiving the message. The only advantage PPM brings over a billboard is that PPM can count the number of ears. Other than that it is largely fluff to spin and fool the advertiser.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm not saying the suits are stupid but they sure seem limited in their vision.

Do you pay more for the products you buy today than you did 40 years ago? If so, why is that OK, and more commercials is not?

 

[davideduardo]

And I will once again repeat that PPM has no way of ascertaining whether the wearer is actually listening or receiving the message. The only advantage PPM brings over a billboard is that PPM can count the number of ears. Other than that it is largely fluff to spin and fool the advertiser.

It is the advertising community, not broadcasters, who demanded electronic measurement, faster delivery and more granularity. In other words, the PPM.

The advertisers are not "fooled" as they are the ones who "made" radio broadcasters spend about 60% more for ratings than they spent for the diary service.

Advertisers know a percentage of ads are not heard. Just as, going back more than a century, they knew that not every ad on every page of a newspaper was read. They know that a certain percentage of all impressions will produce sales so they buy bulk impressions.[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[landtuna]

Do you pay more for the products you buy today than you did 40 years ago? If so, why is that OK, and more commercials is not?

Depends upon the product. Gasoline is cheaper (by about 60 cents per gallon). Many foodstuffs are also cheaper. TV's and most electronics, much cheaper. Most products have changed (read: improved) so much that direct comparisons are impossible. My home phone in 1966 was less than $2/month. My current home phone (which is now touch-tone, not rotary dial) is $27 with about half of that amount being taxes. Taxes are one item that have increased exponentially.

If I were to take my most recent paycheck (circa 2001) and compare it to a list of basket items I would find I am doing much better than my parents did in the mod-60's. So, no, everything has not increased in cost - as adjusted for inflation although it might have relative to your income (which has been somewhat stagnant these past few years).

But to get back to your post - I assume your point was that because it is more expensive to run a radio/TV station then I should be willing to suffer through more and more commercials. Untrue. I would assume that the additional spot cost would make up that difference. I assume that it doesn't because there is more competition for spots or because the station owners want to boost their bottom line.

 

[landtuna]

It is the advertising community, not broadcasters, who demanded electronic measurement, faster delivery and more granularity. In other words, the PPM.

I understand that but I also suspect advertisers have less than a detailed education in statistics. It may be that the immediate nature of PPM feedback was the big selling point and that they recognized the accuracy was not going to be improved by much.

I once worked in IT for Avon Products, yes, that Avon, and back then they changed their selling campaigns every two weeks. That meant it took about three weeks from the beginning of a campaign to the receipt of orders and thus, the state of their business. The advantage to a timing of that type is the accuracy. You are no longer guessing who is buying what, you know, and you can adjust production and pricing as necessary to achieve the desired sales results. While PPM may have added some accuracy with respect to stations listened to and TSL it does nothing of significance to tell the advertiser what the results of their campaign might be.

 

[Darth_vader]

"Me? I will not listen to any station with long blocks of ads. Just won't happen. I am not opposed to 1-2 relatively quick commercials between songs but more than that I will fire up my personal library where there are no commercials."

"Yes, but I have been this way for many, many years - even when I was well inside the demographic. Additionally, there are millions more like me and more all the time. The only thing terrestrial broadcasters have going for them is that people appear to be tiring of pay services and are returning to terrestrial broadcasts. The bad news is this does not necessarily include the youngsters (those inside the demographic) - they appear not to be consumers of most broadcast media."

"Really? Do you have actual documented statistics, or just more personal stories about your family and friends? I know they don't add up to millions."

You can add one more to the list. I'm not so young these days, myself, but I did the same even when I WAS within the target demographic.

Probably the only time I ever do willingly listen to long blocks of commercials is if I'm DXing and they're out-of-market (exotic) or if it's part of an unscoped aircheque recording from years or decades past (historic).

"The public doesn't want to pay for music or TV. The only other option to that is watching commercials. You and all of your complaining friends are welcome to pay subscription fees for the content you enjoy."

I've gotten music for free for many years, and (under normal conditions) the only time I usually see commercials is if I specifically look for one.

 

[davideduardo]

I understand that but I also suspect advertisers have less than a detailed education in statistics. It may be that the immediate nature of PPM feedback was the big selling point and that they recognized the accuracy was not going to be improved by much.

Advertisers pretty much invented the use of statistics in marketing. Start with P&G's invention of market research by sampling back around 1930.

Today, the MRC, formed by advertisers as a response to the complaints and subsequent investigations of ratings over 50 years ago, has some of the nation's best statistical and polling experts constantly monitoring the ratings process.

Today, they have some of the greatest experts in data mining, one of the most statistics-based functions you can imagine.

I once worked in IT for Avon Products, yes, that Avon, and back then they changed their selling campaigns every two weeks. That meant it took about three weeks from the beginning of a campaign to the receipt of orders and thus, the state of their business.

The concept of flights for specific products was very popular for a time... the flights were generally planned a year or more in advance so the creative could be similarly planned and developed. Flights were also used, and still are, by advertisers who prefer a greater Share of Voice for a short period than a lower one on a longer timeline.

The advantage to a timing of that type is the accuracy. You are no longer guessing who is buying what, you know, and you can adjust production and pricing as necessary to achieve the desired sales results. While PPM may have added some accuracy with respect to stations listened to and TSL it does nothing of significance to tell the advertiser what the results of their campaign might be.

Nor did the Crossley ratings in 1931.

The point of ratings is to give guidance as to pricing and potential delivery of impressions based on history. The advertiser is responsible for the message and all the other issues that define a successful campaign such as pricing, styling, availability, accessibility and, of course, comparison with competitors on quality, desirability and all the other factors that make a consumer opt for your product.

In fact, there is an old adage that the best way to get a bad product off the market is to advertise it.

 

[landtuna]

In fact, there is an old adage that the best way to get a bad product off the market is to advertise it.

Apparently that strategy is being used today by GM.

 

[b-turner]

David is exactly right. I've spent years selling radio. Much was in smaller markets. The question business owners always asked was if radio worked.

I was perplexed by that question when I started radio sales. My Dad had managed a bookstore and ran mostly institutional spots except when something was happening in-store. His objective was 'top of mind awareness'. He wondered if radio worked. He quit advertising for a month or two. Sales were down and fewer people showed up for in-store events. He resumed advertising and sales went back up almost instantly. Still he admitted he could not pinpoint one customer or even one purchase he could say came from radio. They even asked customers what got them in the store and most of the media they mentioned were venues where the store did not advertise. Nobody said radio. For example, yellow pages ad (they had no such ad), TV commercial (they never used TV). People did not know what got them there but the customer count was up 11% when he advertised on radio compared to not using radio.

Why is that? Radio is the media that allows you to use your other senses to concentrate on other things. It's hard to read a newspaper, watch a TV show or movie or utilize other media while driving, working and simply not being in front of and devoting attention to that specific media. Some call working and driving while listening to radio as passive listening but it still registers in the mind. And many times it proves just how well you can multi-task.

What I find interesting is how so many seem to think radio makes no money and is ineffective while complaining radio has too many commercials. I always found that a place businesses choose to advertise is usually pretty effective because it works. If radio didn't, you can bet you'd hear very, very few commercials. My point is if there are too many commercials it must be because the venue works and works well. So, if radio has too many commercials, it works. If nobody is listening there would be no commercials. It cannot be both but one or the other.

My personal opinion is we play too many commercials. At least stop sets that are too long. That, unfortunately is out of radio's control because prices are set, more often than not, by the buyers who assess a cost per thousand, meaning the sales rep has to figure out how they can hit that cost per thousand without killing the integrity of the rate card. This is where the big boys have an advantage. They, through multiple stations can deliver more of the target demo over a few stations, hitting cost per thousand and hold the rate integrity for the station the buyer really needs. That dictated cost per thousand means a station or station group cannot set commercial load maximums as easily as in the past because they really cannot command a premium for a limited commercial load nor can they afford to let dollars go to competitors once they reach that specified commercial load. There is a lot of truth in 'if they buy once they'll buy again', so you don't want what was earmarked for you to go to a competitor if you can help it.

In decades past stations that chose an 8, 10 or 12 minute maximum commercial load had greater leverage because there were fewer stations on the dial. I'd suspect there are 3 stations to every one on the air today compared to, say the 1970s when commercial loads tended to be limited. Certainly when you paid very high multiples for a good station meant you needed to sell more commercial units to pay for it.

People complain about commercials and we in radio are the problem. I have joked radio made it in spite of itself. We made the commercial a negative and are powerless in making it what listeners want because when you sell a client, they control content, not the radio station. We sell the time to let them say what they want and thus cannot dictate how they say it because they're paying. That's not to say we haven't produced some really entertaining spots.

I think our future will be more commercial oriented especially media with few commercials now. Everybody is looking for a way to pay for the service they offer and the commercial is a good way to do it. After all, when people won't pay for it to be non-commercial, it sort of forces your hand, doesn't it?

 

[semoochie]

That's a good point about per market stations being up. In my city, before 1968, there were eight FM stations receivable, nine if you count a ten watter that was gone three blocks from the station. I counted the other day and figuring in the LPFMs and translators, I got 41!

 

[b-turner]

When I was looking for a nice small market station I looked at lots of communities. Plainly put, what I was looking for hardly exists these days. I wanted a small town station where most of the town listened. Instead of single station markets I found towns under 10,000 people with 3 up to 10 stations all fighting it out for what little revenue was there. What had once been a nice profitable market for 1 or 2 stations morphed in to a market of say, 5 or 6 stations run by two groups that dropped local live programming for a few computer driven formats with a shared news director and shared sales staff struggling to make enough to pay all the bills. Sure, listeners have more options but there is little content except music to cause them to listen.

In one town of 8,000, ten stations share the dial. All of them find a way to survive but none of them are cash cows. They are always looking at that financial cliff somewhat although they can financially handle any station emergency like a direct lightning strike. 7 of the 10 are owned by two owners. Still the number of stations greatly affects the 'results' one can achieve from one station.

That can be driven home with one scenario I looked at: a town under 10,000 with 3 AM and 2 FM signals. One of the AM stations sold for a bit over $10,000, no studio, leased tower site with existing equipment worth much more than the asking price. Surprisingly the top biller is one of those AM stations. One of the FMs moved to target a bigger town. My point, it is tougher than ever to make radio work in over saturated markets...and the worst are the tiny towns where there used to be a cash cow that was live and so local you felt like you lived there just by listening.

Ironically, this $10,000 station wasn't a dog, but when you added the monthly costs to maintain a studio/office, pay the tower site rental and other bills and the owner a meager salary to work it all by himself, the work, based on average spot rate and expenditure per client, meant there weren't enough hours in the day to pull it off without another person that this poor owner hadn't the money to hire. After about 15 months trying, he went dark and hung the for sale sign after going $35,000 in arrears. He had a reasonable plan, good format, etc., just not the working capital to make it go. And, luckily for him, the ground system was still good!

He also didn't consider something that historically made potential sales figures elusive. The community had show a growth spurt. With the growth, the chain pharmacies moved in. Dollar General and Family Dollar were there and some of the other national chains. All of these additions had pretty much torn up the locally owned businesses that had served the community for decades. By the time he walked in, yes retail sales figures were at an all time high, but much of that went to the big chain stores that didn't buy locally, so in reality, the real radio dollars potential was only about 60-70% of what it had been just a decade prior. Even the long-time big supermarket was really hurting because of the WalMart Super Center that went in about 25 miles away. I could have been easily duped by historic sales figures for radio in that market too. He was honest and revealed that to me. He suggested a religious format instead of his oldies based AC. He did manage to post a few $4,000 months but he figured he needed $8,000 to have an employee and break even.

 

[TheBigA]

I would assume that the additional spot cost would make up that difference. I assume that it doesn't because there is more competition for spots or because the station owners want to boost their bottom line.

More competition for spots. Spot price has held steady for about ten years. Increased competition has also cut the average number of spots an hour. Contrary to your opinion, the average number of spots is down about 2 per hour from 15 years ago.

 

[davideduardo]

That's a good point about per market stations being up. In my city, before 1968, there were eight FM stations receivable, nine if you count a ten watter that was gone three blocks from the station. I counted the other day and figuring in the LPFMs and translators, I got 41!

There was a general increase in stations over the years, but an explosion due to Docket 80-90 that assigned new channels and allowed changes in class and in city of license.

My comparison is with a rural location in Michagan called Omena. It's 20 miles north of Traverse City on a peninsula in the lake. In 1961 when I worked summer at WCCW, back in Omena I could hear 1 kw WTCM and 5 kw WCCW in the daytime. WCCW was a daytimer, and the WTCM signal on 1400 did not reach Omena. The only listenable FM was in far-off Cadillac.

Skip to today. The Traverse City market has 44 stations, 30 of them commercial. At Omena, about 30 of them have good signals. Have inflation-adjusted dollars increased 15 or 18 times? No. Just the number of stations.

 

[landtuna]

Advertisers pretty much invented the use of statistics in marketing. Start with P&G's invention of market research by sampling back around 1930.

P&G not only sampled their products and customers but they also tied them into their products via entertainment (mostly soap operas). That is a level of loyalty you don't see much any more.

 

[davideduardo]

P&G not only sampled their products and customers but they also tied them into their products via entertainment (mostly soap operas). That is a level of loyalty you don't see much any more.

Most radio shows were "sponsored" and some lasted a decade or more with the same sponsor. At that time, tastes were not so fragmented, so an advertiser could do that and still reach a big percentage of the nation.

When radio started fragmenting after W.W. II and TV came on the scene, advertisers switched to spot advertising on radio and gradually did the same on TV.

P&G did much more than just doing polls of consumers. They initiated the Pantry Check to spot trends and changes and pretty much invented the in-home monitoring of consumption patterns. They also pioneered test market product testing and things like blind testing.

 

[landtuna]

Contrary to your opinion, the average number of spots is down about 2 per hour from 15 years ago.

And that's about the time I quit listening. But that isn't exactly my point. It isn't the number of spots per hour that is my problem. It is the number of spots run consecutively. When I was still working I had about a ten-minute drive from home to work. It was not unusual for me to go the entire trip and hear nothing but spots. It got to where I just left the radio off or traveled down the pre-sets until I found a song. And if I were an advertiser I would want my message to be a bit more visible than that.

 

[K.M. Richards]

When I was still working I had about a ten-minute drive from home to work. It was not unusual for me to go the entire trip and hear nothing but spots. It got to where I just left the radio off or traveled down the pre-sets until I found a song. And if I were an advertiser I would want my message to be a bit more visible than that.

And the rebuttal to that opinion is already posted in this thread (#30). Because of the way our brains work, we retain a lot of information from radio, likely subconsciously. We may not even realize we remember information from radio advertising, but we do.

Advertisers care only about warm bodies coming into their store, and even with the long breaks you (the no longer listening non-professional, I should point out) despise people do retain information and come in the store, proven by the downturn in patronage if someone who has been advertising consistently suddenly stops.

You like anecdotal evidence. Post #30 is entirely that, yet you ignore what is contained in there because it does not fit your personal view ... a view which is scientifically disproven, with documentation. And a view that is subscribed to by exactly zero of the decision-makers in this industry.

Tell me (and this is an honest question, based on my observations): Do you post here out of boredom? Do you like increasing your blood pressure by arguing with us? You can't possibly think you're going to change anything ... or do you think that?

 

[landtuna]

Most radio shows were "sponsored" and some lasted a decade or more with the same sponsor. At that time, tastes were not so fragmented, so an advertiser could do that and still reach a big percentage of the nation.

In a lot of examples, such as Jack Benny, the sponsor (there were several over the years) actually owned the air time and Benny (and associates) were hired directly by the sponsor. He makes note of this almost every year at contract time. Other shows like Fibber McGee & Molly were the same. Because the show was actually owned by the sponsor they often wove the commercial right into the show dialog itself. Either that or segued into a speech by people like Don Wilson who spoke the commercial.

 

[landtuna]

And the rebuttal to that opinion is already posted in this thread (#30).

You are not referencing a post with an opinion. I described my trip to work. How is that an opinion?

Because of the way our brains work, we retain a lot of information from radio, likely subconsciously. We may not even realize we remember information from radio advertising, but we do.

And I'll bet every single person in radio airtime sales knows that pitch. Doesn't make it true.

Advertisers care only about warm bodies coming into their store, and even with the long breaks you (the no longer listening non-professional, I should point out) despise people do retain information and come in the store, proven by the downturn in patronage if someone who has been advertising consistently suddenly stops.

This above makes no sense. In any case I have never been asked by any shop owner or sales staff whether or not a radio ad drove me into the shop. All they can do is look at the aggregate on the bottom line.

You like anecdotal evidence. Post #30 is entirely that, yet you ignore what is contained in there because it does not fit your personal view ... a view which is scientifically disproven, with documentation. And a view that is subscribed to by exactly zero of the decision-makers in this industry.

And those same decision-makers are doing soooo very well nowdays, right?

Tell me (and this is an honest question, based on my observations): Do you post here out of boredom? Do you like increasing your blood pressure by arguing with us? You can't possibly think you're going to change anything ... or do you think that?

I didn't think I was arguing. Simply stating my opinion as most everyone else does. My BP is fine BTW. Thanks for asking. And I already answered your second question.