Are Spots In Right-Wing Talk Shows Not Effective?

[davideduardo]

If he's a Ford dealer and wants to move F-150s, a country station is the place he should be. And a Volvo dealer would be throwing money away if he bought time on a country station. Of course, car dealers don't buy radio, any radio, like they used to.

As was said in another post, what a barge-load of steretypes.

In the area I spend the most time in, known as the "Southwest" a pickup truck is most likely to be blaring regional Mexican music than anything else. And the percentage playing that music increases with the price of the truck.

Your incorrect Volvo statement reminds me of a call years and years ago to the Volvo dealers' association in a certain very large Northeaster market. We were told, in this exact language, "your listeners don't buy our cars... they steal them". A contact was made with the manufacturer, where it was pointed out that, at the time, the biggest selling luxury car in Puerto Rico was Volvo and the brand had, thus, very high appeal in the market. So much for your stereotype.

And... why don't you check the RAB data on sales categories. Automotive is a very strong radio category.

 

[davideduardo]

When a business has first hand knowledge that their customers care more about CD players, satellite receivers, MP3 players, iPod connectivity, etc. than they do about broadcast radio reception, they won't be as enthusiastic about buying radio commercials.

Consumers assume AM and FM will be standard in a car. They only ask about the other things that are important, because they don't know whether those features come standard.

They don't ask about CDs as nearly nobody uses in-car CDs anymore. Not many actually ask about satellite, which is why satellite tends to come standard with a 3 to 12 month free trial period; only about one in 8 cars has an active satellite subscription. In fact, not too many people connect iPods anymore, either... that product is near the end of its lifecycle. The connectivity that is most wanted is bluetooth for smartphones for both calls and music as well. The next most important feature is some form of an Internet dashboard that allows selection of radio players and streaming services to be accessible from the dash via apps.

 

[TheBigA]

They don't ask about CDs as nearly nobody uses in-car CDs anymore.

That's an important thing to point out. People aren't buying CDs any more, so the in-car CD player is a waste. In place of buying CDs, people are streaming music from various sources. The sources aren't typically curated music lists, like radio, but rather personal music lists like the old home-made cassettes. People used to make mix tapes. Now they make mix streams. They do this in addition to traditional radio.

 

[Avid Listener]

Modern car CD players can usually also play MP3's on computer CD disks. The "mix streams" can be easily made by burning MP3's onto CDs. I once drove for over 11 hours with only one CD filled with MP3's, and still had unheard songs left.

 

[TheBigA]

Modern car CD players can usually also play MP3's on computer CD disks. The "mix streams" can be easily made by burning MP3's onto CDs. I once drove for over 11 hours with only one CD filled with MP3's, and still had unheard songs left.

It's much easier to do it the other way, and doesn't require making the CD in the first place. Just pull it in from the cloud, where it always resides, no matter where you are, or whose car you happen to be driving.

 

[davideduardo]

Modern car CD players can usually also play MP3's on computer CD disks. The "mix streams" can be easily made by burning MP3's onto CDs. I once drove for over 11 hours with only one CD filled with MP3's, and still had unheard songs left.

I already have all my music and playlists on my smartphone. Why would I copy it all to a computer to burn a CD? I can just play it in my car. As a matter of fact, my newest car will detect the music on my smartphone and I can select it as a source using a button on my steering wheel. No extra work, and I can have about 5 days worth of non-stop, no repeat music if I wish.

It's been reported in most of the trades that automakers are considering eliminating CD players in cars. They are mechanical devices, and generate needless warranty repairs. Customers don't want or need them any more.

 

[FredLeonard]

CDs had an active marketing shelf-life of 20 plus years (about the same as old time radio, or video cassette players). But in that time, I built up quite a collection of CDs (a lot of them content previously purchased on tape cassettes and/or LPs). I could dub them off to mp3 files but why bother? Glad to have CD capability in my dashboard for when I feel like listening to those CDs.

Social research is about correlations and patterns. There are always exceptions, outliers. As in: I'm 16 and I love Oldies. Targeting and ad buys are based on patterns. Products and brands are often statements (or "badges"). If the wrong people adopt a product, the product may no longer be desirable to its core franchise.

 

[Avid Listener]

I already have all my music and playlists on my smartphone. Why would I copy it all to a computer to burn a CD? I can just play it in my car. As a matter of fact, my newest car will detect the music on my smartphone and I can select it as a source using a button on my steering wheel. No extra work, and I can have about 5 days worth of non-stop, no repeat music if I wish.

It's been reported in most of the trades that automakers are considering eliminating CD players in cars. They are mechanical devices, and generate needless warranty repairs. Customers don't want or need them any more.

Hmmm. It seems you are also an expert on alternative music delivery systems, and well aware of all the various alternatives to broadcast radio available to listen to music. Yet you still keep sticking to the story that the ratings systems (that you're an expert at delivering results on) is dead-on accurate when it says that radio listening has not diminished because of all that other music delivery technology. Somehow, those two different truths don't seem to be mutually compatible. Either there are more competitors for the attention of people who want to hear recorded music, in which case the older option will get less attention, or their isn't.

 

[davideduardo]

Yet you still keep sticking to the story that the ratings systems (that you're an expert at delivering results on) is dead-on accurate when it says that radio listening has not diminished because of all that other music delivery technology.

Any station or group that subscribes to ratings knows that, while reach is essentially unimpaired, the time spent listening to terrestrial AM and FM radio has been reduced for various reasons, including the introduction of the PPM in the top 48 markets and the sharing of time with new media options.

However, broadcast companies are rapidly trying to capture streaming audiences with apps, sidechannels, rich content, interactive participation in programs and other methods of keeping up with how listeners want content delivered. And pressure is being put on Nielsen to do cross-platform measurement that includes all distribution channels.

You are committing the common and fatal error of thinking that "radio" is only AM and FM. Radio, to the listener, is any system for the distribution of audio content. SiriusXM is radio. Pandora is radio. iHeart is radio. Uforia is radio.

 

[JeffM]

Of course, car dealers don't buy radio, any radio, like they used to.

Speak for yourself; radio here is a car-dealer-based life form!

 

[boombox4]

I read the article, don't really see a direct tie-in to conservative talk radio, except the Ruth's Chris thing. The last time I listened to Rush, which was probably 15 years ago, he had their adverts on his show. No idea if he still does.

 

[Avid Listener]

You are committing the common and fatal error of thinking that "radio" is only AM and FM. Radio, to the listener, is any system for the distribution of audio content. SiriusXM is radio. Pandora is radio. iHeart is radio. Uforia is radio.

Ah hah! The truth is finally out. I've kept contending that radio (meaning terrestrial broadcast radio on AM and FM) has been losing listeners to alternate content providers, and you kept denying it. Now you reveal that you were including most of the alternate content providers as part of "radio". So, I guess my little MP3 transmitter that sends a fraction of a watt signal to my car radio is also "radio".

 

[davideduardo]

Ah hah! The truth is finally out. I've kept contending that radio (meaning terrestrial broadcast radio on AM and FM) has been losing listeners to alternate content providers, and you kept denying it. Now you reveal that you were including most of the alternate content providers as part of "radio". So, I guess my little MP3 transmitter that sends a fraction of a watt signal to my car radio is also "radio".

You apparently don't know the difference between cume and TSL.

Cume has remained relatively constant for the 50 years that Arbitron / Nielsen has been doing ratings.

TSL has declined in the last half-decade. Significantly.

But most of the "decline" has been due to the roughly 40% decrease in TSL when the top 48 markets changed from diary to PPM. Since those 48 markets make up over 60% of the total listening in all rated markets, this cause a national decline of over 30% in TSL levels.

In addition, new media has moved many listeners from AM and FM to streams. However, stations have been streaming for the last 15 years (remember Mark Cuban's broadcasst.com?) and some, albeit not all, the change has been from over the air radio to streaming radio. Radio is simply taking its content to the distribution channels listeners want to use. We've been doing this for a decade and a half.

The only thing "new" is the use of apps and the aggregation of many stations in single apps that can appear on smartphones, tablets and dashboards. It's simply doing what listeners want.

And when I talk about Pandora or iHeart or Uforia or SiriusXM being radio, I am simply quoting what listeners tell us. And that is that any audio that comes from somewhere else is "radio". The term no longer refers to "steel in the sky" broadcast stations... listeners use the term generically for any kind of audio programming or podcast.

And I have been saying this on these groups for the last decade.

 

[Avid Listener]

You apparently don't know the difference between cume and TSL.

Cume has remained relatively constant for the 50 years that Arbitron / Nielsen has been doing ratings.

TSL has declined in the last half-decade. Significantly.

And you apparently don't know what "effective" means to an advertiser. For an advertisement to be considered "effective", it has to result in an increase is sales of the product or service being advertised. The only answers that matters to the question, "Are Spots In Right-Wing Talk Shows Not Effective?" is whether or not the sales of the products or services being advertised on Right-Wing talk shows increased as a result of those spots or not. It doesn't matter how many people tuned in, even if only for a brief period of time. It doesn't matter how many minutes they had their radios turned on, even if only as background noise. All that matters is whether or not the products or services advertised increased their sales or not. In the world of advertising and marketing, that's the only thing that matters.

Cume or TSL describe measurements that are means to an end. Theoretically, the more exposure any advertisement gets, the greater the potential that the sales message carried in the ad will prove effective. But mere exposure alone isn't the only factor. The message communicated must be the right one. It must resonate with the potential buyer, regardless of the venue. It must be able to break through the clutter of other messages. It must be memorable enough to remain in the customer's mind when he is in a position to make the purchase. How many commercials are out there that people remember the joke in the message, but not the name of the product? It must make him want the product. People remembered, "Where's the beef", but it also made many of them dislike all fast food restaurants, including the one that ran the ad.

If a commercial is associated with the host of a radio show, that can be good or bad. People who listen to a host, but who think he's a pompous ass, might not look with favor on any product that he endorses. Even if people like the host, if he has a reputation for a certain flaw, such as obesity, his endorsement of a dining establishment might not be that effective for the establishment.

So, if you want to discuss the topic Are Spots In Right-Wing Talk Shows Not Effective?, perhaps you should expand your thinking to go beyond the limited issues of cume and TSL and actually give thought to measuring the effectiveness of spots in actually selling products and services.

 

[davideduardo]

So, if you want to discuss the topic Are Spots In Right-Wing Talk Shows Not Effective?, perhaps you should expand your thinking to go beyond the limited issues of cume and TSL and actually give thought to measuring the effectiveness of spots in actually selling products and services.

I see. You finish an argument you lost due to your lack of understanding of the basic facts and building blocks of the radio model by changing the subject of the discussion.

In any event, you have opened a Pandora's Box. Folks have done doctoral dissertations about advertising effectiveness, and it has been studied to no end.

The fist thing that is discussed in any such study is the process of communication from sender to receiver. Radio is the medium. While environment is a consideration, the more important factors in the effectiveness of a message have to do with the content: appropriateness of the offering for the receiver, convenience in buying, price, style of the ad, etc.

So the format of a station is only one element out of many. We can be reasonably sure that most of the target-demo the listeners to any station are there because they like the station, so the environment question is not particularly high on the list of factors. So this is not a part of a talk-specific discussion. And since ads are priced based on audience size, the playing field is level here.

So the effectiveness of ads on a talk radio station is predominantly dependent on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the message and not on the medium.

 

[TheBigA]

Folks have done doctoral dissertations about advertising effectiveness, and it has been studied to no end.

Exactly, and in fact most salespeople do follow-up with the client to measure effectiveness, and strategize towards improving the campaign for increasing sales. That's step two in every pitch. The relationship doesn't end with the ad buy. That's just the beginning.

 

[FredLeonard]

Exactly, and in fact most salespeople do follow-up with the client to measure effectiveness, and strategize towards improving the campaign for increasing sales. That's step two in every pitch. The relationship doesn't end with the ad buy. That's just the beginning.

No, it doesn't end with the ad buy. There's the next ad buy. And "follow-up" with a client does not measure effectiveness. Certainly not at the local level with station reps talking to area merchants. Some guy's brother-in-law says "I heard you on the radio" and the guy thinks his ad's effective.

You want to measure the effectiveness of radio advertising? Just count all top consumer marketers who don't use radio - especially those who were big users of radio a generation ago. All that's left, especially in right-wing talk, are bottom-feeders.

 

[TheBigA]

And "follow-up" with a client does not measure effectiveness.

Really? I speak directly with my clients, and we measure effectiveness. How about you?

 

[FredLeonard]

Really? I speak directly with my clients, and we measure effectiveness. How about you?

Measure? How?
Guessing is not measurement.
Besides any savvy buyer is not going to rely on a guy trying to sell him something to tell him how well the product works.

 

[TheBigA]

Measure? How?
Guessing is not measurement.

You've never sold spots, have you?