The advertisers know that.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
HD Radio on the Way Out?
- Thread starter Santa fe
- Start date
The advertisers know that.
So why do they waste their money knowing that their ROI is so low. How many people are buying insurance based on Flo or a Gecko.
Lots of people. Just not older ones.
That is called an "in house" ad agency. One client, does its own commercial production, research and ad placement (often using third party providers of that research, production and ad buying).
It's been done as long as I have been in radio, and that is 66 years. And it existed well before that.
The disadvantage of an in-house approach is that the client does not get fresh ideas. At agencies, various teams of creatives can work on new concepts. Whole staffs of media buyers and strategists can look at what and how much to buy.
Most in-house agencies I have worked for were created mostly to try to beat harder on media for lower rates. In exchange, they did not get the best placements or creative.
The Gecko and Flo are very highly researched. First, they want to know if the ads are seen. Then they want to know if the character creates brand recognition. Finally, they find out if all of that has any influence when insurance renewals come up with each consumer.
Personally, I think of the Gecko and end up humming "Liberty, Liberty, Liberty." I think of Flo and I can't for any incentive think of which insurance company she represents.
My example just points out that different people react differently. Advertisers know that they can only expect a tiny portion of viewers to remember an ad, and even fewer to buy. Again: they know that.
Just think of an ad for a brand of pickup trucks. Of the thousands of viewers of a local TV station, how many want a new pickup truck right now or in the near future? Few. And how many would consider your brand? Even fewer. We are talking about only a fraction of a percent of the viewers even being potential buyers, and fewer to your brand. But if you sell a truck or two every time an ad runs, you are achieving your goal; ad rates have to be set in each market so that vendors can make enough off each one to support the campaign.
Note. there are several articles online showing how much those ad campaigns increased insurance subscriber rates.
"In the decade since her debut, Progressive’s business has more than doubled from $13.6 billion in 2008 to nearly $30 billion today. According to the company, its growth rate over that same time period, which accelerated to 21% in the company’s most recent quarter, has been roughly double that of the property and casualty insurance industry as a whole through the most recent year-end."
Remember, HD was pushed by broadcasters who were very concerned about "digital" audio back in the era when CDs and DVDs made that a buzzword. Bell Labs, among others, looked for a digital answer for that concern as a way of making money. When Bell was chopped up, the development of what became "HD Radio" was sold to a startup that got venture capital and investments from major broadcasters.
The model was always based on creating technology and licensing it to both broadcasters and radio set makers. It was never a "scam".
How else except royalties could Xperi make money when they did not make radios or own radio stations? For the first 20 years of FM, all radios with that band had to pay royalties to Major Armstrong's company.
How many brands and what share of the market are eliminating FM? As far as I know, just the low end Tesla (made as a come-on to get people into the dealer and not to be sold in quantities).
iBiquity, when it was alone, was a venture capital company, created with institutional venture capital money and a big token investment by the largest group broadcasters. Struble had stock incentives, but it was not his company.
He may have been part of the negotiations, but the board of directors of iBiquity sold the company. Struble was a very minority shareholder.
Struble all along was a venture capitalist. He was recruited to put together a deal with the old Bell patents and some development and to market a product. That is what venture capitalists do.
The European PAL standard was developed roughly ten years after the RCA NTSC color system, and it wasn't used on air until four years after it was unveiled. So PAL had the advantage of being able to take the existing NTSC system and modify it into something that worked better.
That said, the primary difference between NTSC and PAL color was just that PAL flipped the phase of the color information in alternating lines. That meant that phase errors in transmission could be easily cancelled out at the receiver, thereby providing the stable colors that NTSC struggled to provide for many years. But that is essentially a modification of NTSC, so it is arguable that PAL would have existed in the same form if NTSC hadn't already existed as a starting point to be modified into something better.
Except for live sports (college football and amateur and professional hockey) I don't watch TV. Don't drink beer so that really limits effective advertising to me. I did buy a car recently but its not one that I've ever seen commercially advertised.
Got a few podcasts going but I skip any ads that might be present. Don't do streaming.
I think it's been mentioned to you that you're not typical. Most people your age are glued to the TV all day. Usually one channel.
And I listen to that Oldies station religiously...when I listen. None of their advertising appeals to me though. I don't need financial or medical advice and I don't want help selling my house or funeral services.
I agree I'm not typical but I know many people who don't fit that category either. Got two sons who watch only movies on their TV's but not broadcast movies. My wife watches half a dozen downloaded shows from broadcast TV (with ads stripped out). My daughter watches no TV at all and granddaughter watches only Internet-based videos and only one broadcast TV show (again, without commercials).
I do watch exactly one broadcast show; Jimmy Kimmel's monologue. I don't know anyone near my age who is "glued to TV" all day.
I'm not making it up.
Retirees Watching More Television Today, Still Healthy
Retirees today are living longer, healthier and wealthier lives than previous generations — but they also are watching substantially more television, according to research from a major money management company. The study suggested policymakers should look at ways to encourage volunteering.
You really need to think before typing a comment like that. Nursing home patients are there because they have dementia, Alzheimer's, and other severe mental and physical disabilities that prevent them from leading a normal life. So yeah, they watch TV, and a lot of them can't change the channel or even comprehend what's on. Pointing to disadvantaged people to try to prove your false, and frankly ageist statement, is beyond crass.
Well, here is one. I have the TV on in the background all the time that I am working, because about 80% of the WorldRadioHistory job is repetitive and boring.
I replaced my comment moments after I typed it. I prefer what's there now.
However I have relatives in nursing homes who just need daily assistance that they can't get at assisted living places. They aren't confined to beds, have disabilities or dementia. They're active and swim every day. But they need help with food preparation and medication.
The article I linked points out that active retired people also watch a lot of TV.
Many nursing home residents are perfectly aware and intellectually acute. They are there for recoveries from surgery that can't be handled at home, because they are physically disabled and have no family to care for them and other reasons that don't have to do with dementia and the like.
And, for whatever reason they are there, TV is a constant source of entertainment and improves the quality of life for many.
Yes, a good explanation. My mother was a director of the county health care system in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Ohio for about 4 decades, and you have described the condition of most nursing home residents well: many are active, most are fully aware, but they have disabilities or problems that prevent them from taking care of themselves.
Today, many such facilities call themselves "assisted living" and offer everything from just basic housekeeping and meal services to help with exercise, physical therapy, mobility, etc.
Beyond David's response (which is very accurate, by the way), it should be remembered that not all advertisements are there to make you buy right now. Some are there to give out basic information about the product or service you are offering so that when the company running the advertisement does the hard sell ad, you as the listener will be more interested in purchasing its latest product. There are also (though I haven't seen that many lately) paid advertisements that will give you information about product recalls and the like.