Dave-FM's New Imaging

[RoddyFreeman]

I personally like it. Anyone else?

 

[houston]

I like it too, they have also considerably changed their processing.

 

[OutOfTheBiz]

Not a fan at all. Dude sounds like he ate a half-dozen Prozac before doing the voice session.

 

[Uriah]

...and in what way does a new imaging voice improve the listener experience?

 

[radiochic05]

...and in what way does a new imaging voice improve the listener experience?

Imaging to most typical listeners is the same as a commercial. All they're thinking is, "it's not a song-I'm out of here." Research confirms it. In the PPM world, imaging is sadly becoming seen as a tune out.

 

[OutOfTheBiz]

...and in what way does a new imaging voice improve the listener experience?

Imaging to most typical listeners is the same as a commercial. All they're thinking is, "it's not a song-I'm out of here." Research confirms it. In the PPM world, imaging is sadly becoming seen as a tune out.

It's most certainly irrelevent in the PPM world, as recall is no longer needed. I'm waiting to see how long it is before stations make noticeable cuts in the amount of imaging they do. More back-to-back segues anyone?

 

[cspotrun]

...and in what way does a new imaging voice improve the listener experience?

Imaging to most typical listeners is the same as a commercial. All they're thinking is, "it's not a song-I'm out of here." Research confirms it. In the PPM world, imaging is sadly becoming seen as a tune out.

ok then, you will have a 50,000 watt I-POD with no personality or identity. if the imaging is a tune out, they're not doing it right.

 

[whit979]

ok then, you will have a 50,000 watt I-POD with no personality or identity. if the imaging is a tune out, they're not doing it right.

Agreed. Not to borrow from one imaging company's current marketing campaign, but there really is too much 'left-brain' writing with imaging. There has to be more right-brain, emotional connectivity in it. Make it *part* of the entertainment, not a break from it.

 

[RTibbs]

ok then, you will have a 50,000 watt I-POD with no personality or identity. if the imaging is a tune out, they're not doing it right.

Agreed. Not to borrow from one imaging company's current marketing campaign, but there really is too much 'left-brain' writing with imaging. There has to be more right-brain, emotional connectivity in it. Make it *part* of the entertainment, not a break from it.

Agreed as I poke through the cobwebs of my mind and think about imaging as a listeners. There are still some stations in certain time periods where I still remember them. WPLR the Rock station in NEw HAven CT I used to always listen to had some creeative ones not crap like "Hi this is Bert and you are listening to all the hits Q100 with ten n a row."

 

[RoddyFreeman]

...and in what way does a new imaging voice improve the listener experience?

Imaging to most typical listeners is the same as a commercial. All they're thinking is, "it's not a song-I'm out of here." Research confirms it. In the PPM world, imaging is sadly becoming seen as a tune out.

I saw a PPM presentation for PD's, and I don't agree with you, RC. The PPM has been showing that talk between songs on a music station is a tune-out factor. And while it's true a station doesn't have to incessantly mention itself to get diary mentions in a PPM world, branding is still key. It boils to how imaging is used. My guess is that a sweeper coming out of a stop set suggests to listeners that music is about to start.

And...this is just my opinion, but great imaging can make a station sound great. Case in point: WSB-AM.

 

[radiochic05]

...and in what way does a new imaging voice improve the listener experience?

Imaging to most typical listeners is the same as a commercial. All they're thinking is, "it's not a song-I'm out of here." Research confirms it. In the PPM world, imaging is sadly becoming seen as a tune out.

I saw a PPM presentation for PD's, and I don't agree with you, RC. The PPM has been showing that talk between songs on a music station is a tune-out factor. And while it's true a station doesn't have to incessantly mention itself to get diary mentions in a PPM world, branding is still key. It boils to how imaging is used. My guess is that a sweeper coming out of a stop set suggests to listeners that music is about to start.

And...this is just my opinion, but great imaging can make a station sound great. Case in point: WSB-AM.

I should have been more clear. The research I referenced was for a group of music stations.

The talk between the songs is either jock talk or it's an imaging piece (with talk.) As you state, talk between songs is a tune out. For this reason, you will probably find any imaging piece fitting snugly over a song intro as long as the music doesn't stop. The days of brilliant, theatre of the mind imaging pieces that stop the music flow between songs are over.

As a radio person, I love terrific mind-blowing imaging like everyone else. Realistically, the average Joe probably doesn't care how great it is. He just knows it's keeping his favorite song from playing. Is it IPOD thinking? Absolutely it is. However, if a music station isn't thinking it, they'll probably drop like a rock with the new ratings system.

Ironically, I noted the station you bring up where imaging makes the station sound great is a talk station. No disagreement there, just interesting.

 

[RoddyFreeman]

As a radio person, I love terrific mind-blowing imaging like everyone else. Realistically, the average Joe probably doesn't care how great it is. He just knows it's keeping his favorite song from playing. Is it IPOD thinking? Absolutely it is. However, if a music station isn't thinking it, they'll probably drop like a rock with the new ratings system.

I agree with you this time except for the point above. I believe people have a perception of each station they listen to. The perception is based on many factors: music, personalities, commercial load, imaging, jingles, processing, etc. I highly doubt a non-radio person, when asked why they like a station, would think of imaging. But I would bet that subliminally, imaging affects how listeners perceive a (music) station. And I would also bet that imaging, if done well and used correctly, contributes positively although a listener probably would not realize that.

But the primary purpose of imaging is not to enhance the listening experience. It's to build a brand.

 

[Uriah]

Yes Roddy - imaging is one of 1,000 defining brand associations. When they become self serving or out of context it creates a conflict.

It amazes me that tune out at breaks is sometimes perceived as a NEW finding because of PPM. PPM only reveals what the diary couldn't. Tune out during commercials, when jocks talk and channel surfing has been happening all along. It's ingrained behavior. Ever wonder why PPM shows 5-7 station listening patterns instead of the diary's average of 3? Again behavior - based on the number of presents which defines a listeners universe of options. When launching formats our first goal was: Get a Button!

Agree on WSB - their imaging is for the most part benefit driven - Ex: "traffic and weather together!" It's relevant.
Tell me that Mara's doing all songs with green in the title for St. Patty's day and I'm gone. Trite. Silly.
But - I'll be back later or the next day. When listening to terrestrial radio, 8 of 10 times I end up on DAVE because of the playlist.

My all-time favorite promos/imaging came from a small market station in upstate New York. The promos for their 4th of July fireworks painted such a great visual that listeners would call and donate money to the benefiting charity so the display could be longer.

 

[OutOfTheBiz]

Tho whole concept of "branding" may now be obsolete in regards to radio.

When you're "branding" a soda, your goal is to have people think of your brand while looking at several dozen options including all of your competition on a store shelf.

With radio -in regards to imaging anyway - there's no side-by-side with your competition. If you're hearing a station's imaging you've already chosen the product - you're tuned in - and there's no competitor on the same channel. I would suggest that nearly the entire reason you created a "brand" in radio was to aid listeners in recall when filling out a diary. There's no longer that need.

Maybe this is another example of the radio business clinging to an ideology that has passed it by. It's happened many times before.

Sure, one way to build cume on a station is advertising that may invite people to tune in for a specific contest, show or musical format. But I would suggest that by far the most common way to draw cume in is by having a great song on your air and catching people who are surfing by. And if they continue to like what they hear they will stay until they are either A) given a reason to tune out (bad song or talk) or B) they turn off the radio altogether (commute is over, other responisbilities, tuning in to TV).

Can anyone imagine a station that has no catchy name or "imaging" slogan? No "positioning" sweepers between songs? Only wall-to-wall high-caliber songs, only the most basic personality bits to navigate listeners in and out of commercial breaks, and a few key service elements like fast title and artists sells taged to every song and possibly drive-time traffic. The station name is nothing more than it's frequency: 97.5FM I'm imagining something like the music channels on Cable TV - where you select the format but there's nothing there but the songs. Radio veterans would scream bloody murder about how boring and un-creative it is... but could just the opposite be true from a listener perspective? Could something like that be SO different that it's perceived as innovative? And wouldn't it record all of it's cume and TSL via the PPM with no worry at all of listener recall?

Just something to think about. Someone will probably take a chance and try an approach like this eventually. It would be quite interesting to see if it could work.

 

[FloydB]

Here's a question I've wondered about current imaging: Who thought of the "bright idea" was such a bright idea to mention the competition on your station?

When 97.1 Jamz first launched, I loved it. The music was awesome, the imaging was good. It just lacked personalities IMO. Then, it seemed at one point after every song it was "we caught V-103 playing 2 million hours of commercials and five seconds of music".

Now, we all know Jamz was never really meant to be around for long, otherwise Cox would've actually invested in it. But, I heard another station that's supposed to be a cluster's "flagship" (not Cox) use the same type of sweeper the other day.

I personally feel that the competition should never be mentioned. Even if they are better (and everybody knows it) you still have to portray like you're the best. Otherwise, it feels like self-doubt, and any of us that's been in sales know that the first second you show any sign of doubt or weakness, you've lost your sale.

Am I wrong?

 

[whit979]

Here's a question I've wondered about current imaging: Who thought of the "bright idea" was such a bright idea to mention the competition on your station?

When 97.1 Jamz first launched, I loved it. The music was awesome, the imaging was good. It just lacked personalities IMO. Then, it seemed at one point after every song it was "we caught V-103 playing 2 million hours of commercials and five seconds of music".

Now, we all know Jamz was never really meant to be around for long, otherwise Cox would've actually invested in it. But, I heard another station that's supposed to be a cluster's "flagship" (not Cox) use the same type of sweeper the other day.

I personally feel that the competition should never be mentioned. Even if they are better (and everybody knows it) you still have to portray like you're the best. Otherwise, it feels like self-doubt, and any of us that's been in sales know that the first second you show any sign of doubt or weakness, you've lost your sale.

Am I wrong?

Perhaps it all depends on whether or not the 'better' brand can deliver something agreeably better than the competitor. I buy into it when Domino's tells me that their subs beat Subway in a taste test, or that more people preferred Pepsi than Coke in a blind test. Does it stick? Eh, maybe, maybe not. I can't point to a specific instance in which a brand became the leader after saying that they beat out their competition in something (given, though, that their competition kept doing what made them successful). The old adage that "a good product sells itself" still rings true. Probably why Coke commercials now consist of nothing but people flailing around (do their spots even have dialogue anymore?).

 

[jabba17]

Can anyone imagine a station that has no catchy name or "imaging" slogan? No "positioning" sweepers between songs? Only wall-to-wall high-caliber songs, only the most basic personality bits to navigate listeners in and out of commercial breaks, and a few key service elements like fast title and artists sells taged to every song and possibly drive-time traffic. The station name is nothing more than it's frequency: 97.5FM I'm imagining something like the music channels on Cable TV - where you select the format but there's nothing there but the songs. Radio veterans would scream bloody murder about how boring and un-creative it is... but could just the opposite be true from a listener perspective? Could something like that be SO different that it's perceived as innovative? And wouldn't it record all of it's cume and TSL via the PPM with no worry at all of listener recall?

That's ALMOST like satellite. Except, satellite has the channel name staring you in the face, e.g., "First Wave" and not just "Channel 44". Satellite also has some positioning bits between songs to give the listener an idea of their format (in case they haven't figured it out already).

Now, there are some cases where personalities have been creeping onto the satellite channels, such as to provide a period ambience and feel for a period channel (60s on 6, 70s on 7), or to provide a hook with a well-known name (all the original MTV VJs* on 80s on 8). And, there are other channels where personalities who discuss the music (sometimes at length) are part of the format, such as Boneyard and Underground Garage, which is important since they play a lot of new and otherwise not-well-known stuff that benefits from some introduction and discussion.

*For you younger folks: MTV used to play something called "music videos", that is, short films that would accompany a song. This was all that MTV used to play, if you can believe that. These "videos" were played in succession, and occasionally there would be a break where a personality would talk about the videos that just played, and also introduce the next one, like a disk jockey on the radio. These people were called "video jockeys", or "veejay" or "VJ" for short. These VJs on MTV included Martha Quinn, Nina Blackwood, JJ Jackson (RIP), Mark Goodman, and Alan Hunter. The four surviving VJs now serve as DJs on satellite's 80s On 8 channel.

 

[tcsnrayp]

...and in what way does a new imaging voice improve the listener experience?

Imaging to most typical listeners is the same as a commercial. All they're thinking is, "it's not a song-I'm out of here." Research confirms it. In the PPM world, imaging is sadly becoming seen as a tune out.

ok then, you will have a 50,000 watt I-POD with no personality or identity. if the imaging is a tune out, they're not doing it right.

Perhaps the point here is replacing SOME of the imaging with SOME straight segs and SOME additional LIVE content.

 

[OutOfTheBiz]

Here's a question I've wondered about current imaging: Who thought of the "bright idea" was such a bright idea to mention the competition on your station?

When 97.1 Jamz first launched, I loved it. The music was awesome, the imaging was good. It just lacked personalities IMO. Then, it seemed at one point after every song it was "we caught V-103 playing 2 million hours of commercials and five seconds of music".

Now, we all know Jamz was never really meant to be around for long, otherwise Cox would've actually invested in it. But, I heard another station that's supposed to be a cluster's "flagship" (not Cox) use the same type of sweeper the other day.

I personally feel that the competition should never be mentioned. Even if they are better (and everybody knows it) you still have to portray like you're the best. Otherwise, it feels like self-doubt, and any of us that's been in sales know that the first second you show any sign of doubt or weakness, you've lost your sale.

Am I wrong?

I think the point in time when the "bright idea" became a viable way to position a station can be traced back to The Power Pig in Tampa. Their ENTIRE on-air imaging and positioning campaign was "Q105 Sucks" EVERY sweeper, liner - everything was a complete tear-down of the market-leading legendary Top40. Even their billboard were nothing but the Q105 logo with a SCREW through it - and the words "Power Pig" written like spray-painted graffiti. It was brilliant... and it absolutely DESTROYED Q105 in a matter of months. We're talking a long term #1 station. Suddenly this new station comes along and says - "Hey - they SUCK" and everyone in the market said "You know what? You're right - they DO suck" It's radio history and it made attack-marketing viable. Now is it ALWAYS the right approach or always effective? Of course not. But there IS precedent for it to be highly successful.

 

[Uriah]

Classic example -remember it well.

One of the key reasons it worked: Q105 reacted. One element of Power Pig's strategy was to get under their skin internally at Q105 to undermine their confidence and engaging them in an on air pi**ing contest.

Imagine having the #1 station in town run promos for your new station. Q105 actually helped seal their own demise by
giving credibility and recognition to the attack.