Does Anyone Else Think Radio Branding Is Idiotic?

[landtuna]

Here in the Phoenix area we have several law firms, personal injury mostly, who brand themselves "The Wolf", "The Eagle" and so forth. Every time I see one of their commercials it occurs to me they are being very unprofessional and perhaps inviting hilarity to their image. Note that doing so might just create more identity in potential clients' minds and that may be the primary reason it is done. Nevertheless, most truly professional law firms don't do it which brings me to radio.......

In some isolated cases radio branding seems like a good idea. James Earl Jones identifies a local easy listening station as the KY-OOOO-TAY and it seems to fit since their call is KYOT. But to label a station Wolf, Bear, Thunder, River etc. seems to provoke laughter.

When I was young the stations I listened to tended to either use jingles (K-G-O.....stereooooo etc.) or simple labels (KTKT's "Radio Free Tucson" or KYA's "Boss of the Bay" or something that at least related somewhat to their call (KZON's "The Zone") or location but not Disney-like monikers that seem IMHO to demean the profession.

Thoughts?

 

[Tom Wells]

I agree 100%. I have complained on another thread about the practice.
As you say, if there is some reference to your own call letters, that's understandable and actually means something.

The new ones really annoy me.

 

[sack]

I always thought labeling a station with a name like "The Hawk" or "Alice" or any of the other names we have heard is a way to try to create a personality for a station that essentially has no personality. So much of what radio does now with station branding is so silly to most listeners they don't even care (except to laugh at it). Put real people on the air and let them be real people and you'll have a station personality,,, you can't fake personality if everyone is reading the same liners over and over.

So many times I have heard consultants (yukk) tell me that "we want to give the impression we...(play more music, rock harder, have less commercials)". I always wondered why just give the impression,, why not DO IT.

 

[davideduardo]

Here in the Phoenix area we have several law firms, personal injury mostly, who brand themselves "The Wolf", "The Eagle" and so forth. Every time I see one of their commercials it occurs to me they are being very unprofessional and perhaps inviting hilarity to their image. Note that doing so might just create more identity in potential clients' minds and that may be the primary reason it is done. Nevertheless, most truly professional law firms don't do it which brings me to radio.......

Were law firms given a Federal ID of 6 digits, like "Law Firm 003684" you shure would see them find a more memorable and warm way to identify.

Remember, call letters are a vetstige of radio in the 20's where equipment drifted, frequencies were shared in the same market, etc. They are really useless today. Nearly all the rest of the world uses station names and not calls. It makes remembering a station so much easier.

We don't have detergents named KDER and WCLN. They have names that relate to cleanliness or brightness like Tide and Cheer and such.

In some isolated cases radio branding seems like a good idea. James Earl Jones identifies a local easy listening station as the KY-OOOO-TAY and it seems to fit since their call is KYOT. But to label a station Wolf, Bear, Thunder, River etc. seems to provoke laughter.

Why? The names are generally fun or related to the format or the lifestyle of the format. They impart a warmth or feeling, something calls can not do, nor were ever intended to do.

When I was young the stations I listened to tended to either use jingles (K-G-O.....stereooooo etc.) or simple labels (KTKT's "Radio Free Tucson" or KYA's "Boss of the Bay" or something that at least related somewhat to their call (KZON's "The Zone") or location but not Disney-like monikers that seem IMHO to demean the profession.

Our profession is to entertain. Calls are not entertaining, unless you are a DXer or a Ham. In the early 70's, when the growth of FM essentially trippled the number of signals competing in every market, stations found calls were not as memorable as names, and the trend to all kinds of names, from Y-100 and 13-Q to The Wolf or Love 94 took off, with enormous benefits to the stations that started the trend.

 

[landtuna]

Our profession is to entertain. Calls are not entertaining, unless you are a DXer or a Ham.

Ah, maybe that's part of my issue. Although with commercial radio the only really and absolutely necessary piece of knowledge is the frequency. "KOOL 94.5" tells me what I need to know. "The River" tells me nothing.

In the early 70's, when the growth of FM essentially trippled the number of signals competing in every market, stations found calls were not as memorable as names, and the trend to all kinds of names, from Y-100 and 13-Q to The Wolf or Love 94 took off, with enormous benefits to the stations that started the trend.

Well, like I said, some brands are understandable and have tie-ins to the call, location or genre. I think the use of those is smart branding. But the proliferation of generic brands, especially those which give an air of supremacy or boastfulness are a bit over the top. Think of the two tigers in national advertising: Tony for Frosted Flakes (cute and cuddly) and Exxon's tiger (what? gasoline is strong and powerful?). See?

And when you have a "Q-94" in virtually every market in the country, what does that say about originality or entertainment? Of course, maybe it was meant to be a contraction for "we play rock music" but it just sounds silly to me.

 

[Bongwater]

Here in the Phoenix area we have several law firms, personal injury mostly, who brand themselves "The Wolf", "The Eagle" and so forth. Every time I see one of their commercials it occurs to me they are being very unprofessional and perhaps inviting hilarity to their image. Note that doing so might just create more identity in potential clients' minds and that may be the primary reason it is done. Nevertheless, most truly professional law firms don't do it which brings me to radio.......

Were law firms given a Federal ID of 6 digits, like "Law Firm 003684" you shure would see them find a more memorable and warm way to identify.

Remember, call letters are a vetstige of radio in the 20's where equipment drifted, frequencies were shared in the same market, etc. They are really useless today. Nearly all the rest of the world uses station names and not calls. It makes remembering a station so much easier.

We don't have detergents named KDER and WCLN. They have names that relate to cleanliness or brightness like Tide and Cheer and such.

In some isolated cases radio branding seems like a good idea. James Earl Jones identifies a local easy listening station as the KY-OOOO-TAY and it seems to fit since their call is KYOT. But to label a station Wolf, Bear, Thunder, River etc. seems to provoke laughter.

Why? The names are generally fun or related to the format or the lifestyle of the format. They impart a warmth or feeling, something calls can not do, nor were ever intended to do.

When I was young the stations I listened to tended to either use jingles (K-G-O.....stereooooo etc.) or simple labels (KTKT's "Radio Free Tucson" or KYA's "Boss of the Bay" or something that at least related somewhat to their call (KZON's "The Zone") or location but not Disney-like monikers that seem IMHO to demean the profession.

Our profession is to entertain. Calls are not entertaining, unless you are a DXer or a Ham. In the early 70's, when the growth of FM essentially trippled the number of signals competing in every market, stations found calls were not as memorable as names, and the trend to all kinds of names, from Y-100 and 13-Q to The Wolf or Love 94 took off, with enormous benefits to the stations that started the trend.

I don't know, but the last thing in Word Associsation 101 you think of when you think of "Wolf" is happy personailties with 10 In A Row!

If Peter cried Wolf and this showed up...well, it wouldn't be much of a story.

Call letters are not entertaining, but neither are weird monikers. You listen to a station for music and people who know something about it. True it was fashionable back in the day to make your station stand out with monikers. But they are THE SAME monikers in EVERY market. Every market has a "Star", "Mix", "Wolf", "JACK or (Insert Person Name Here)", etc. After a while, such branding loses it's appeal when it's everywhere and becomes as redundant as the call letters they were meant to replace.

Call letters are the first and maybe the last frontier in radio branding. Most of the highest rated stations still use their actual call signs instead of a moniker. Why? Because it's still a spark of originality in a cookie cutter radio industry. You don't have to be a radio pro to figure that out. The listeners have spoken....

Cheers!

 

[gr8oldies]

Yes, we have a law firm calling itself The Tiger. It's insipid but they do so much pounding of that brand image with constant TV, full pages on the cover of every Yellow Pages, newspaper and radio, they do more business than anyone else in the area.

There are good brands and insipid brands to be sure, but I'm not convinced anyone goes from one city to the other, here's a Mix when they already have a Mix and goes ballistic. I have friends who are KLove fans, and as much as it makes us all ill, they actually LIKE the fact that they can go town to town and hear the exact same programming.

 

[davideduardo]

I don't know, but the last thing in Word Associsation 101 you think of when you think of "Wolf" is happy personailties with 10 In A Row!

A "Wolf" in country would evoke the rugged, outdoorsy, let's go fishin feel. For a rock station, it would be agressive and heavy. It's all in what you do with an image.

There was nothing so generic as canned tuna until Charlie was created. Talk about making a brand stand apart from the rest!

Call letters are not entertaining, but neither are weird monikers.

Most people do not know their licence plate numbers. But they know the brand of the car... and the model. A Mustang. A Camaro. An explorer. See? Names.

You listen to a station for music and people who know something about it. True it was fashionable back in the day to make your station stand out with monikers. But they are THE SAME monikers in EVERY market. Every market has a "Star", "Mix", "Wolf", "JACK or (Insert Person Name Here)", etc. After a while, such branding loses it's appeal when it's everywhere and becomes as redundant as the call letters they were meant to replace.

Most people don't listen to radio in multiple markets... and likely they are amused by having a familiar name in a distant place if they do.

The reason Clear Channel calls all its CHRs and Churbans KISS is that it is nearly impossible to find a name that is not already service marketd. If a name is registered in a small town in Maine for a 1 kw daytime AM, and if that AM is on the web, they have a presence in all 50 states and all territories and the mark may be protected. So once a company latches onto a name that is clear and registers it, they use it all over.

Call letters are the first and maybe the last frontier in radio branding.

That is like saying your social security number is better than your name. It may be for unique identification, but not for any other purpose.

Most of the highest rated stations still use their actual call signs instead of a moniker.

Look at the top 20 stations in LA. KLVE is K love. KFI is KFI, and its audience is mostly over 55. KBUE is Que Buena. KLAX is La Raza. KROQ is K-Rock. KOST is Coast. KRTH is K-Earth. KRcd is Recuerdo. KIIS is Kiss FM. KCBS FM is Jack. KBIG is My 104 point something. KTWV is The Wave. KPWR is Power 106. KHHT is Hot 92.3. KLOS is KLOS. KKGO is Go Country. KXOL is Latino 96.3. KUSC is KUSC

So, of 20, three stations... a public broadcaster, an old leaning AM talker and an old leaning classic rocker use calls. The others use names, often having picked calls that reinforce the name, too.

So, looking at market after market, only the old leaning, tawdry heritage stations use calls for the most part.

Why? Because it's still a spark of originality in a cookie cutter radio industry. You don't have to be a radio pro to figure that out. The listeners have spoken....

How have listeners spoken? In fact, in the ratings 80% of diary mentions are based on the frequency. Call letters are seldom used, and only for stations that use them... even then, most times the frequency and not the calls are used.

 

[davideduardo]

[And when you have a "Q-94" in virtually every market in the country, what does that say about originality or entertainment? Of course, maybe it was meant to be a contraction for "we play rock music" but it just sounds silly to me.

Most Q's and Z's and X's are vestiges of the 70's. When Arbitron won over Pulse and Hooper, we all realized how listeners wrote down stations in the diaries and how confusing calls were. So we looked for names that incorporated the frequency (rounded in the age of analog dials) and some unique quality. We found that the "funny" letters in the alphabet that were neither vowels nor highly used consonants could be used as sort of a way out of the four letter calls.... just one letter and the address... Z 93, 95 X, etc.

I did both a Q and a Z in that era... both were #1 in their market. It worked.... in the case of my Z 93, in a top 15 market we went from launch to #1 in 22 days... no doubt because we plastered the market with Z promotional material and the name was so simple, dramatic and easy to remember that it stuck. Today, 30 years later, the station is still top 5 in its market.

 

[BRNout]

I've been reading this thread with great interest because so many great points have been made here. It is quite true that few countries (outside of the USA, Australia, Canada and Mexico) use calls at all.

Look at what's been going on in the UK as a great crystallization of this discussion. Stations have "brand" names as their sole identifiers. Capital Radio, Kiss, Galaxy, Kerrang! are all brands that have become well known and ubiquitous throughout the country. The example totally makes David's fine point.

However (and this is where the complaint comes in), as the UK's radio scene has been swept by consolidation, those brand names have taken over many long-standing local stations. They get the corporate brand. And, radio in the UK has become very homogenized over the past 5-10 years. This has led to lots of complaints and dissatisfaction amongst members of the public. Unique local stations end up getting homogenized and rebranded, sounding much as the parent station does in London (although there is still a local content requirement over there). Cheaper to do it that way, but better? That's very questionable.

Now, this ties in with the discussion of monikers used here in the US like "the Wolf" or "Alice" or "the Fox." Many corporate owners have become intellectually lazy and tend to slap such names on any of their properties with a given format. And, the homogenized programming goes right along with it. Along with the same liners, sweepers and (at times) even the same voice tracking.

A great example of what's wrong with such commonplace branding can be found right here: http://www.nassaubroadcasting.com/ Nassau is probably the least imaginative operator out there when it comes to branding and positioning. McRadio at its finest. Frank here, Frank there, a Wolf here, the Bone there. You can't tell what city you're in with their stations and all local flavor is gone. That makes for LOUSY radio. For crying out loud, at least draw the damn Fox a little differently from market to market! Use some local personalities.

Of course, they aren't alone. Clear Channel's "Kiss" formats tend to be pretty vanilla and CBS' "Alice" format is pretty much the same wherever its found. But, both owners do have unique and successful properties too.

In the end, I don't know that it's the branding itself that's idiotic. It is the abuse and laziness that goes along with that form of thinking. "Kiss" becomes more than just a trademarked name. It is an entire format that sounds the same wherever you are. And that's boring. Stations like Nassau's are downright excruciating and sound almost the same in Reading, PA as they do in Portland, ME. Not just the insipid names are the same - everything is!

That kind of monotony is the root of the complaint - the way I see it.

 

[landtuna]

I don't want to take my own topic off-line but I see similarities in the way radio and fast food restaurants have become "vanilla". And the branding of radio seems to encourage that movement.

Even as recently as the late 60's there were "mom and pop" restaurants co-existing with the up-and-coming chains. Gradually the public preference and economics of size resulted in the virtual extinction of the non-chains. The variety and local flavor as you traveled across the country had died and was replaced with a sameness that became preferred over experimentation and variety.

Seems the same thing is happening with radio now and especially the branding of the several dozen well-known names.

As one who has always enjoyed surprises and diversity it is most discouraging to me, the listener.

 

[davideduardo]

Seems the same thing is happening with radio now and especially the branding of the several dozen well-known names.

The only thing used market after market is the name due to the legal issues. The formats are different, with locally researched music in all the larger markets.

 

[landtuna]

That statement makes no sense to me David.

Let's say I made soda in Phoenix and expanded my business by buying other regional makers. I want my customers to continue drinking my beverage whenever away from home so I used the same brand name. However, the actual product wasn't the same. Wasn't made the same way. Didn't taste the same. Customers thought they were buying the 'same' but it wasn't.

What do you think the customer reaction would be?

 

[davideduardo]

That statement makes no sense to me David.

Let's say I made soda in Phoenix and expanded my business by buying other regional makers. I want my customers to continue drinking my beverage whenever away from home so I used the same brand name. However, the actual product wasn't the same. Wasn't made the same way. Didn't taste the same. Customers thought they were buying the 'same' but it wasn't.

What do you think the customer reaction would be?

That is just a horrible analogy.

Radio stations are local, and program to the local market. They have absolutely no interest in people who listen to them while traveling, since those people do not get into local ratings except in their home market.

So, for example, Clear Channel managed to secure a national mark on a number of names, vrom The Beat to Kiss. In a few cases, they license the name to other companies, or prior usage allows others to use the names in a few specific markets per an agreement.

Clear believes, rightly, that Kiss is a good name for any flavor of CHR or Churban, so they have dozens of Kiss stations all over the country, each locally adjusted and researched.

One name that could not be trademarked because it became common before the internet is Mix. Many different companies own Mix named stations, and most are some kind of AC, as the name fits nicely and is good for the target demo. And while there are a lot of songs most of these stations all play, each is different and each is tuned to the local market.

Nobody in radio cares that a station in another market uses the same name or format unless that station has a valid service mark on the name they want to protect. Listening to out of market stations is essentially nil, and if a listener to Mix in Sacramento goes on an Alaskan cruise and hears a Mix in Anchorage, they are probably smart enough to understand that the Anchorage station is in Anchorage.

 

[landtuna]

That is just a horrible analogy.

OK, maybe the analogy could have been clearer (I was being pressured to get off the PC).

I was writing from the station owners perspective and not the individual station.

If you ran a company like CC and had a brand you bought and serviced to multiple stations across the country, and wanted your listeners in any one of those cities to recognize your brand and know what to expect when they tuned in you would not program your unique brand with significantly different content, right?

I fully understand that any single station programs to its own local market and maybe it is erroneous of me to think that CC would care that much if a brand they own varies significantly between stations. Maybe all they care about is the bottom line at each station and place no value on the brand name. If so, it would be almost an anomaly in the business world as brands are usually difficult to establish and expensive to retain.

 

[davideduardo]

If you ran a company like CC and had a brand you bought and serviced to multiple stations across the country, and wanted your listeners in any one of those cities to recognize your brand and know what to expect when they tuned in you would not program your unique brand with significantly different content, right?

Nope. I would not care what how different individual stations with the same name in separate markets were. Ratings for stations outside my market are irrelvant. Since people driving through a different city don't exect to hear their hometown stations, whatever reaction they might have is also irrrelevant. They will go home, and find their favorite stations unchanged. That is all that matters.

On the other hand, it is very hard to find a name that is not already taken somewhere in the US and its territories, so we have to use the names we can use in every possible market.

I fully understand that any single station programs to its own local market and maybe it is erroneous of me to think that CC would care that much if a brand they own varies significantly between stations. Maybe all they care about is the bottom line at each station and place no value on the brand name.

Only people who pay attention to these differences would even care. And that means people who would post on these boards, not the average listener... who will not care at all. The fact is that most stations sharing a name are reasonably similar... usually so similar that the average listener would not really sense a difference as the genre and type are identical. If you are driving through a city or there for a day or two, the differences will not even be noticed.

 

[JeeperOne]

Hi everyone:

That statement makes no sense to me David.

Let's say I made soda in Phoenix and expanded my business by buying other regional makers. I want my customers to continue drinking my beverage whenever away from home so I used the same brand name. However, the actual product wasn't the same. Wasn't made the same way. Didn't taste the same. Customers thought they were buying the 'same' but it wasn't.

What do you think the customer reaction would be?

That is just a horrible analogy.

Is it??? Obviously David, you weren't around to hear about the public reacted when Coca Cola introduced Cherry Cola back in the early 1980s. If you were, then you'd know that's what practically all but killed the one company Coke was going after when Cherry Coke was first introduced. That being Shasta Cola.

But getting this back to radio, you keep branding oldies radio as "Classic Hits". When you really think about it, "Classic Hits" is just a fancy name for OLDIES. Why you ask? Simple. The format plays OLD MUSIC.

All the name does is appease THE ADVERTISER. Listeners could care less. The name "Classic Hits" is just a fancy way of saying OLDIES in this politically "correct" society in which we live because advertiserng agencies are either A). Too scared to even utter the "O" word to potential clients, B). Are too [EDIT] lazy to admit that their prospective clients would be advertising on a station that plays old music out of fear of losing their commissions or C). Both.

But seriously David, if you really think THE LISTENER gives a damn about what a radio station calls itself, then YOU ARE DELUSIONAL. Why? Because all listeners really care about (And expect) from a station playing (Dare I say it?) OLDIES music is - THE MUSIC.

Radio stations are local, and program to the local market. They have absolutely no interest in people who listen to them while traveling, since those people do not get into local ratings except in their home market.

Listeners don't get into ratings AT ALL David. Why? Simple. All WE LISTENERS (Yet again David) care about is THE MUSIC. Nothing more. Nothing less. Some don't even care about the DJs (I just happen to amongst the crowd that prefers that radio stations do have DJs though ).

Listening to out of market stations is essentially nil, and if a listener to Mix in Sacramento goes on an Alaskan cruise and hears a Mix in Anchorage, they are probably smart enough to understand that the Anchorage station is in Anchorage.

Probably true in small towns, but not in larger cities.

David, you obviously show signs of being more of a salesman rather than someone in programming. I'm only a listener (I even admit that). But it seems to me David that judging by the comments made by others on here, I'm more on target than you are.

Just my opinion....

Cheers


[EDIT-profanity]

 

[davideduardo]

Is it??? Obviously David, you weren't around to hear about the public reacted when Coca Cola introduced Cherry Cola back in the early 1980s. If you were, then you'd know that's what practically all but killed the one company Coke was going after when Cherry Coke was first introduced. That being Shasta Cola.

Radio stations are not national brands; they are all local brands. What is done with a brand name outside each station's local coverage area is irrelevant.

Anc Cherry Coke was introduced as a fountain drink in the 30's as far as I can research.

But getting this back to radio, you keep branding oldies radio as "Classic Hits".

No, "oldies" is 60's based pop hits, and "Classic Hits" is 70's based pop hits. It's the way stations themselves describe themselves for listing in Arbitron's different reports.

When you really think about it, "Classic Hits" is just a fancy name for OLDIES. Why you ask? Simple. The format plays OLD MUSIC.

Format names are seldom used on the air. They are used by stations to give advertisers who often have no familiarity with stations in different markets a way to know what kind of format each has. Arbitron gives stations dozens of different ones to pick from, and if a new format gets numerous stations, they add that format to the list.

Oldies and Classic Hits both play old music, but from different core decades. Classic Rock, Soft AC, Smooth AC, Urban AC, Spanish Adult Hits, Adult Hits, Classic Country and others also play old music. And each is a different core sound.

All the name does is appease THE ADVERTISER. Listeners could care less.

Correct. Because the advertiser has a need to know.

The name "Classic Hits" is just a fancy way of saying OLDIES in this politically "correct" society in which we live because advertiserng agencies are either A). Too scared to even utter the "O" word to potential clients, B).

Clients seldom drill down to the station and format level. A national campaign is based on reach and frequency and CPP goals in each market, not on formats. However, the agency may want to know so they can understand how to optimise reach and frequency, where format non-duplication is often a point.

There is no objection to saying "oldies" today, except that if you are selling an oldies station, don¿t expect to see many clients. All "oldies" says is "55+ core" and there are essentially no buys coming from agencies for 55+ radio stations.

But seriously David, if you really think THE LISTENER gives a damn about what a radio station calls itself, then YOU ARE DELUSIONAL. Why? Because all listeners really care about (And expect) from a station playing (Dare I say it?) OLDIES music is - THE MUSIC.

I never said the listener cared. In any case, oldies listeners will need to go to satellite or iPods since there are so few real oldies stations left.

Radio stations are local, and program to the local market. They have absolutely no interest in people who listen to them while traveling, since those people do not get into local ratings except in their home market.

Listeners don't get into ratings AT ALL David. Why? Simple. All WE LISTENERS (Yet again David) care about is THE MUSIC. Nothing more. Nothing less. Some don't even care about the DJs (I just happen to amongst the crowd that prefers that radio stations do have DJs though ).

I did not say listeners were interested in the ratings. I said they do not get into (as in "having their listening counted") in the ratings in any place that is not their home. So, even if hundreds even millions of tourists to Orlando listen to Orlando radio, their listening will have NO impact on Orlando ratings.

David, you obviously show signs of being more of a salesman rather than someone in programming. I'm only a listener (I even admit that). But it seems to me David that judging by the comments made by others on here, I'm more on target than you are.

That's amusing. http://www.davidgleason.com/2004_NAB.htm

Radio is a business. I am a programmer, but also a business person. As a matter of fact, I built my first station just so, as Manager, I could hire myself to program.

 

[landtuna]

Anc Cherry Coke was introduced as a fountain drink in the 30's as far as I can research.

Slight correction here. Cherry was a fountain flavor added to the Coca-Cola syrup as were vanilla and chocolate. In my high school days (late 50's, early 60's) vanilla was actually more popular than the other two.

The 'Cherry Coke' product, canned or bottled but not fountain, was what Pat Cook was referring to.

 

[davideduardo]

The 'Cherry Coke' product, canned or bottled but not fountain, was what Pat Cook was referring to.

Cherry Coke was still a fountain drink (all fountain drinks are mixes, really) and preceeded Shasta, whatever that was (must have been regional) by considerable time. In any event, Cherry coke was first bottled to combat the growing popularity of Dr. Pepper outside the South, in that the "10 - 2 - 4" drink is a cola and cherry derivitive.