I Participated in a Radio Focus Group

[fordranger797]

Yesterday I had the opportunity to participate in a focus group to shape local radio in my current city (Vancouver, Canada). While I spent some time working in broadcasting in the past, I’ve never had the opportunity to participate in a focus group. It seems like we are always hearing about the “research” that companies are conducting to shape radio, so I jumped at the opportunity to finally experience participate in this research myself.

The group consisted of about 20 participants, all of different ages and backgrounds. There were two moderators. The moderators asked many questions about local radio, but it seemed like their primary objective was to collect feedback on what the participants think about rock, classic hits, and alternative music on the radio dial.

I’ve summarized a few of my key takeaways from this conversation below. I’ve been following a few threads here on radio discussions that have resulted in some pretty heated debates (namely the current thread on WINS going FM in New York City). I have tried to relate/generalize the research that was conducted in this focus group to some of the current “hot button” issues on radio discussions to the best of my ability.

Key takeaways;

1: Participants have a strong dislike for the tight playlist on the local “Jack-FM,” and feel like this station skews too new. In Vancouver, there are only two radio stations that focus primarily on older music, with Jack-Fm being one of them. Most participants in the group felt that Jack boasts about their variety, but actually features a playlist that is too small and predictable. Additionally, they don’t like hearing the newer songs that have landed on Jack, and don’t think these songs fit in with a format that is (supposed to be) “classic hits.” I thought this was interesting, as nobody seems to think that “hypnotize” by Notorious BIG or “hot in here” by Nelly belong on a station that is also playing a Stevie Nicks (I couldn’t agree more).

2. Participants are happy to have two options in the market for listening to alternative rock on the radio. Most of the participants feel that the alternative rock stations should feel compelled to play new music, and should NOT regress to concentrating too heavily on the agreed upon 90’s alternative mix (see the numerous threads on WNYL). To be clear, nobody feels that older songs shouldn’t be there, but they all agree that new music has a place on an alternative rock radio station.

3. Participants like personality. They want live and local hosts. When the moderator asked about local personalities, there was a unanimous agreement that the reason we listen to any radio station has a lot to do with the talent. One alternative station was rated much higher than the other (in terms of overall perception) because the hosts (in every day part) are engaging. In contrast, the participants feel that the other alternative station lacks personality and serves as a jukebox.

4. Participants like listener interaction. They want the on-air talent to engage the audience. They want to hear live callers, they want to hear other people playing contests or calling in with other commentary. They stated that they would listen to a radio station with personalities who provide this type of entertainment, even if the music doesn’t align perfectly with their personal taste. Participants also like creative contests and promotions. They don’t care if they are going to win anything good in the contest, but rather they want to have fun. One participant talked about an old contest that happened on the dominant alternative station where he won tickets to a “mystery” concert, and only found out the day of what show he was seeing.

5. Demographics. Vancouver is certainly a minority-majority market. Additionally, the population in Vancouver is heavily made up of first generation immigrants from China and India. It seems like we are constantly hearing about how ONE alternative station couldn’t succeed in a market with demographics like this, yet there are two. From the discussion that transpired, I am not in agreement that only white listeners would be interested in tuning in to any of the “rock” radio stations in town, as all participants expressed some interest in the each of the stations that were brought up.

Anyway, these are some of my key takeaways (so far). I’m sure more will come to me later. However, I think the commentary in this focus group says a lot. Clearly, radio stations don’t have unlimited budgets to do it all, but there are plenty that do none of it.

 

[davideduardo]

That is a fascinating report. Many thanks.

The organization or group that did the focus group needs to read up on the psychology of such sessions, as they did an awful lot wrong.

The first thing wrong was size. If you go beyond 8 to 12 people, there are too many for individual feelings to be explored and examined. You get lots of superficial stuff, but nothing deep and actionable.

Second, you should do such sessions in sets. Younger women, older women. Younger men, Older men. That sort of thing. If you have a mixed group you get an immediate "alfa male" or woman, and many will hardly participate, even if called on.

Third, the exploratory nature of different music types or styles has to be accompanied with pods of representative songs. Otherwise, you get different interpretations of terminology.

But your observations are interesting.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

3. Participants like personality. They want live and local hosts. When the moderator asked about local personalities, there was a unanimous agreement that the reason we listen to any radio station has a lot to do with the talent. One alternative station was rated much higher than the other (in terms of overall perception) because the hosts (in every day part) are engaging. In contrast, the participants feel that the other alternative station lacks personality and serves as a jukebox.

Many of us have been preaching this here for years. Voicetracking is not live, and recorded breaks by a jock from another market are not local. Too many radio decision makers think the audience is easily fooled and/or don't care. From your report, that's not the slightest bit true. Broadcasters continue to shoot themselves in the foot with these cheap programming tricks.

4. Participants like listener interaction. They want the on-air talent to engage the audience. They want to hear live callers, they want to hear other people playing contests or calling in with other commentary.

I've been preaching this for a long time too. Radio is an audio medium, not a visual medium. No one wants to hear about your texts or social media messages. Every listener has a phone in their pocket. Don't keep making the excuse they don't want to use it to talk. There are always listeners who are willing to call in and be entertaining, you only need a few. The real reasons we don't hear them on the air anymore are voice tracking and laziness.

It seems like we are constantly hearing about how ONE alternative station couldn’t succeed in a market with demographics like this, yet there are two. From the discussion that transpired, I am not in agreement that only white listeners would be interested in tuning in to any of the “rock” radio stations in town, as all participants expressed some interest in the each of the stations that were brought up.

I think American rock programmers need to spend more time listening to stations in Canada where Rock and Alternative radio don't just survive, but thrive in a very diverse nation. In addition to the commercial stations, CBC Radio 2's afternoon Drive show offers a brilliant mix of rock, alternative, indie and AAA music to listeners across the entire country, and host Rich Terfry exemplifies how to talk about the music with breaks that are absolutely worth listening to. That's in addition to not one but two Alternative stations in both Vancouver and Toronto. It's such a shame so many U.S. operators have such tunnel vision when it comes to understanding how to really make the format work.

 

[fordranger797]

That is a fascinating report. Many thanks.

The organization or group that did the focus group needs to read up on the psychology of such sessions, as they did an awful lot wrong.

The first thing wrong was size. If you go beyond 8 to 12 people, there are too many for individual feelings to be explored and examined. You get lots of superficial stuff, but nothing deep and actionable.

Second, you should do such sessions in sets. Younger women, older women. Younger men, Older men. That sort of thing. If you have a mixed group you get an immediate "alfa male" or woman, and many will hardly participate, even if called on.

Third, the exploratory nature of different music types or styles has to be accompanied with pods of representative songs. Otherwise, you get different interpretations of terminology.

But your observations are interesting.

I appreciate the feedback here, David. I would say that the moderators did a pretty good job of managing some of the issues you brought up. Instead of using popcorn style conversation, each participant was given an equal time to talk and share their personal feelings about every issue that was brought up. I felt that this strategy was helpful in preventing dominant personalities from steering the conversation.

 

[fordranger797]

Many of us have been preaching this here for years. Voicetracking is not live, and recorded breaks by a jock from another market are not local. Too many radio decision makers think the audience is easily fooled and/or don't care. From your report, that's not the slightest bit true. Broadcasters continue to shoot themselves in the foot with these cheap programming tricks.



I've been preaching this for a long time too. Radio is an audio medium, not a visual medium. No one wants to hear about your texts or social media messages. Every listener has a phone in their pocket. Don't keep making the excuse they don't want to use it to talk. There are always listeners who are willing to call in and be entertaining, you only need a few. The real reasons we don't hear them on the air anymore are voice tracking and laziness.



I think American rock programmers need to spend more time listening to stations in Canada where Rock and Alternative radio don't just survive, but thrive in a very diverse nation. In addition to the commercial stations, CBC Radio 2's afternoon Drive show offers a brilliant mix of rock, alternative, indie and AAA music to listeners across the entire country, and host Rich Terfry exemplifies how to talk about the music with breaks that are absolutely worth listening to. That's in addition to not one but two Alternative stations in both Vancouver and Toronto. It's such a shame so many U.S. operators have such tunnel vision when it comes to understanding how to really make the format work.

I agree with you 110% on everything that you brought up. I mentioned before that I’m a loyal listener of a classic hits radio station in Toronto. This station does a fantastic job of allowing the personalities to connect with the audience. Not only do you listen for great music, you listen to hear the comments that listeners are going to call in with. They also play amusing contests (some of which are so compelling that I make sure that I’m not away from my work computer when they are happening).

There are some stations in the US that are missing the mark completely (in my opinion). Radio stations that are owned by Audacy are the first ones that come to my mind. I’m from Seattle, where an Audacy rock station (KISW 99.9) has virtually been left to it’s devices, while other stations in the cluster have been dismantled piece by piece until there is virtually nothing left.

Mike Kaplan has become an extremely polarizing figure in the world of alternative radio. I think many fans of the format hold him responsible for many of the failures that we’ve seen on alternative stations owned by Audacy. While I understand that a new approach sometimes needs to be assessed, I think the plug was pulled far too late on their experimentation.

 

[davideduardo]

I appreciate the feedback here, David. I would say that the moderators did a pretty good job of managing some of the issues you brought up. Instead of using popcorn style conversation, each participant was given an equal time to talk and share their personal feelings about every issue that was brought up. I felt that this strategy was helpful in preventing dominant personalities from steering the conversation.

That sounds professional and a good approach to do larger focus groups; I have never heard before of a 20 person group, in fact.

My concern as one who did project creation, recruit specifications and actual interviewing is that a group of persons will have "quiet ones" and natural leaders and occasional bullies. It's really hard to get the broadest range of participation. That is why I like one-on-ones... but three 8-person focus groups can be done in about 4 hours, while 25 people in one on ones takes two days and is very tiring for the interviewer.

The major defect of the "it's your turn now" is that some people have no real answer so they make stuff up. And, even more important, there is not enough time to do personalized follow up questions to each person to find out the "why" of the answer.

Of course, the key is getting participant confidence. Did you see any particular technique employed by the interviewers to get the group to "warm up" to them?

Also, how were you recruited? Did they do a blind contact, or were you registered somewhere that indicated interest in rock music or radio? Did they compensate you? Did they, at the end, tell you who was sponsoring the research?

We seldom get a first hand report on how this kind of research is done, so anything you can add is really, really interesting!

 

[fordranger797]

That sounds professional and a good approach to do larger focus groups; I have never heard before of a 20 person group, in fact.

My concern as one who did project creation, recruit specifications and actual interviewing is that a group of persons will have "quiet ones" and natural leaders and occasional bullies. It's really hard to get the broadest range of participation. That is why I like one-on-ones... but three 8-person focus groups can be done in about 4 hours, while 25 people in one on ones takes two days and is very tiring for the interviewer.

The major defect of the "it's your turn now" is that some people have no real answer so they make stuff up. And, even more important, there is not enough time to do personalized follow up questions to each person to find out the "why" of the answer.

Of course, the key is getting participant confidence. Did you see any particular technique employed by the interviewers to get the group to "warm up" to them?

Also, how were you recruited? Did they do a blind contact, or were you registered somewhere that indicated interest in rock music or radio? Did they compensate you? Did they, at the end, tell you who was sponsoring the research?

We seldom get a first hand report on how this kind of research is done, so anything you can add is really, really interesting!

My best guess is that I was selected based on the fact that I’m a “loyal listener” for CFMI 101.1 in Vancouver. I have taken some of their surveys in the past. I think their parent company, Corus Entertainment, was ultimately behind the research to see how their sister station (CFOX 99.3) is perceived in the market. It seems like the sample group was composed of people who are listeners of various Corus stations (though some of the participants seemed to not be aware of any of the stations that Corus owns, so who knows). The research was conducted by a company called Listener Insights, and we all received a modest monetary reward for our participation.

 

[davideduardo]

My best guess is that I was selected based on the fact that I’m a “loyal listener” for CFMI 101.1 in Vancouver. I have taken some of their surveys in the past. I think their parent company, Corus Entertainment, was ultimately behind the research to see how their sister station (CFOX 99.3) is perceived in the market. It seems like the sample group was composed of people who are listeners of various Corus stations (though some of the participants seemed to not be aware of any of the stations that Corus owns, so who knows). The research was conducted by a company called Listener Insights, and we all received a modest monetary reward for our participation.

 

[davideduardo]

Something smells suspicious here.

The only "Listener Insights" I can find is an online survey company ( Listener Insights | Your Opinion Counts | Your Opinion Counts ) that does not mention on-site surveys or Canadian operations.

Could this be Corus just putting a name on a division to do in-house research? That, of course, gives them access to listener databases.

In small markets, participation generally earns the participant from $100 in lower cost of living markets to as much as $200 in places like Long Island.

If it was Corus and they self-recruited, they were likely trying to get an overview of problems or opportunities. As such, and considering that this may not have been a professionally done study, they are to be commended for at least trying to find out what listener attitudes are.

Could have been done better, but could not have been done at all! At least they merit some points for doing some research when other companies are even firing the janitor!

 

[Kelly A]

Many of us have been preaching this here for years. Voicetracking is not live, and recorded breaks by a jock from another market are not local. Too many radio decision makers think the audience is easily fooled and/or don't care. From your report, that's not the slightest bit true. Broadcasters continue to shoot themselves in the foot with these cheap programming tricks.

When I build a brand new CP in Eastern WA., we had the opportunity to meet and talk with many of the locals. One frequent comment was they hoped we featured live on air talent, hopefully sourced from the community. With a reach of about 18,000 pop count inside the coverage, it was not economically feasible to hire an air staff. Certainly not any of the local's. We went on the air using (at the time) Jones Classic Hits. Over the following year of operation, we occasionally had folks stop by to meet Sky Walker, or whatever satellite-fed personality. Some were surprised that the talent wasn't actually at the station, but none upset about it. The quality of the (researched) music and talent made up for their interest in local people behind the mic.
Like anything with radio or TV; perception and reality are two different things.

I've been preaching this for a long time too. Radio is an audio medium, not a visual medium. No one wants to hear about your texts or social media messages. Every listener has a phone in their pocket. Don't keep making the excuse they don't want to use it to talk.

Unless they're over 50, they don't want to talk on the phone. Facetime is the closest thing you'll find they'll do. And most Facetime calls are made to friends and family. Not some radio station. Oh yeah, radio! That's what my parents listen to!

I think American rock programmers need to spend more time listening to stations in Canada where Rock and Alternative radio don't just survive, but thrive in a very diverse nation.

Canadian radio and TV is horrible with a capital H. Much of the reason why is because the government dictates how many artists of what type can be played in a given hour. It's one reason why many Canadian listeners appreciate listening/watching U.S. stations.

In addition to the commercial stations, CBC Radio 2's afternoon Drive show offers a brilliant mix of rock, alternative, indie and AAA music to listeners across the entire country, and host Rich Terfry exemplifies how to talk about the music with breaks that are absolutely worth listening to. That's in addition to not one but two Alternative stations in both Vancouver and Toronto.

A friend of mine who lives in Toronto calls the music mix you adore so much a: 'schizophrenic dumpster fire'.

It's such a shame so many U.S. operators have such tunnel vision when it comes to understanding how to really make the format work.

That's because they need to make money from radio.

 

[fordranger797]

When I build a brand new CP in Eastern WA., we had the opportunity to meet and talk with many of the locals. One frequent comment was they hoped we featured live on air talent, hopefully sourced from the community. With a reach of about 18,000 pop count inside the coverage, it was not economically feasible to hire an air staff. Certainly not any of the local's. We went on the air using (at the time) Jones Classic Hits. Over the following year of operation, we occasionally had folks stop by to meet Sky Walker, or whatever satellite-fed personality. Some were surprised that the talent wasn't actually at the station, but none upset about it. The quality of the (researched) music and talent made up for their interest in local people behind the mic.
Like anything with radio or TV; perception and reality are two different things.

Unless they're over 50, they don't want to talk on the phone. Facetime is the closest thing you'll find they'll do. And most Facetime calls are made to friends and family. Not some radio station. Oh yeah, radio! That's what my parents listen to!

Canadian radio and TV is horrible with a capital H. Much of the reason why is because the government dictates how many artists of what type can be played in a given hour. It's one reason why many Canadian listeners appreciate listening/watching U.S. stations.

A friend of mine who lives in Toronto calls the music mix you adore so much a: 'schizophrenic dumpster fire'.

That's because they need to make money from radio.

I don’t think it’s really fair to call Canadian radio “horrible.” Clearly, there are unique rules that need to be followed (for better or for worse), and just like in the US, there are some companies that are better at operating their stations than others. Stingray media does a great job programming their classic hits radio stations, with CHBM in Toronto being a great example of radio being done well (in my opinion). Admittedly, some of the other companies have not been known for putting forward the best programming in the world. Is that not also true in the US? iHeart, which always seems to come up as a dirty word for many people, seems to care more about catering their assets to individual markets. On the other hand, the Audacy approach is hideous.

 

[Kelly A]

I don’t think it’s really fair to call Canadian radio “horrible.”

After spending a fair amount of time working across the border, I can say without hesitation: Horrible with a bold, capital H. Even the local's agree.

Clearly, there are unique rules that need to be followed (for better or for worse),

Worse.

Admittedly, some of the other companies have not been known for putting forward the best programming in the world. Is that not also true in the US?

By comparison, most U.S. based stations are better programmed than Canuck stations. As I said; most is because of the government being involved.

iHeart, which always seems to come up as a dirty word for many people, seems to care more about catering their assets to individual markets. On the other hand, the Audacy approach is hideous.

In general; the only people who are critical specifically of iHeart or Audacy stations are a handful of radio nerds, or people who have been canned from either company. If you ask your average citizen what they think of either company, you'll get a blank stare.
Who is the parent company of whichever station, is completely irrelevant to the listening public.

 

[fordranger797]

After spending a fair amount of time working across the border, I can say without hesitation: Horrible with a bold, capital H. Even the local's agree.

Worse.

By comparison, most U.S. based stations are better programmed than Canuck stations. As I said; most is because of the government being involved.

In general; the only people who are critical specifically of iHeart or Audacy stations are a handful of radio nerds, or people who have been canned from either company. If you ask your average citizen what they think of either company, you'll get a blank stare.
Who is the parent company of whichever station, is completely irrelevant to the listening public.

Sorry Kelly, but I don’t agree with you at all on this one. I’ve been listening to radio from Canada for years, and have never felt that it was “horrible.” Rather, I felt that the content was (in many ways) superior. If we’re talking about certain stations or certain markets, then sure, what you say is definitely true. Radio in the Vancouver market leaves quite a bit to be desired, but that doesn’t translate to every market. As I mentioned before, I listen to CHBM from Toronto pretty much every single day at work, and I continue to be impressed by the mixture of music and the quality of the personalities. It’s a station that sounds great and performs well at the same time. I began listening in 2018, and was blown away by the talent. The morning show host (one guy doing a solo show in the largest market in the country) is more entertaining and more enjoyable to listen to than most of the morning teams that I’ve heard.

Sure, can-con can be a blessing or a curse. When it comes to classic rock or classic hits, I’ve discovered many songs with the help of can-con. The same is true for alternative. As for contemporary pop, the jury is still out. All in all, I’m glad that it’s been there to help music get recognized. If you gave some of it a chance, you might be surprised. You could take all of the can-con out of the playlist on CHBM, and it’s still a more interesting playlist than anything on WOGL in Philadelphia or KRTH 101.

I’m not really a fan of public radio, so I can’t comment one way or the other. However, it seems like there are many people who do listen to CBC radio, so perhaps the format is not as bad as you make it out to be.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

Canadian radio and TV is horrible with a capital H. Much of the reason why is because the government dictates how many artists of what type can be played in a given hour.

Media is even more concentrated in Canada than in the U.S. Bell, Rogers and Corus own the majority of commercial radio stations in English speaking Canada, with Stingray being a smaller player. This has resulted in the same sort of staff reductions, nationalized, homogenized playlists and canned programming on radio that the American conglomerates are known for, but on an order of magnitude more in Canada.

CanCon is a double-edged sword. The county's homegrown music industry would have struggled without it because there's so much cultural influence from the U.S., and so much money behind the music and entertainment industries in the U.S.. The Canadian government's initiatives have helped create world-class music, film and video production industries there. CanCon requirements on radio are pretty onerous though, resulting in songs being played more often than warranted, and overplayed well past their expiration date.

On the positive side, the Canadian content adds a level depth and variety to Canadian radio stations not heard in the U.S. Overall the initiatives have been a success for the nation and the pros seem to outweigh the cons. Other countries have similar mandates. I think Australia's rules require radio to play an even higher percentage of domestic music than Canada, for instance.

It's one reason why many Canadian listeners appreciate listening/watching U.S. stations.

So much of the world's music and entertainment is produced in the U.S., it's appreciated around the globe. Canadians live in such close proximity to the United States, and share so much in the way of language and culture, that it's easy for them to consume readily-available U.S. media and entertainment. They also export some great music, and some of your favorite American movies and TV shows are probably filmed in Canada and/or had post-production done there.

A friend of mine who lives in Toronto calls the music mix you adore so much a: 'schizophrenic dumpster fire'.

That station is in my regular rotation and they do an excellent job. The program I described is essentially a AAA format. Even in the U.S., AAA stations have broad and diverse playlists so I can see how someone who doesn't like the format might describe it as a dumpster fire.

Likely adding to your friend's perception, the CBC is Canada's public broadcaster, and Radio 2 (CBC Music) also has blocks of classical music and other programming, not unlike many NPR stations in the U.S. Some people like public radio, some don't. I sense a strong anti-government tone from your comments so I'm not surprised at your opinions. Fortunately for both you and your friend there are many radio stations to choose from in each country and you can pick something else if you don't like it.

 

[fordranger797]

Media is even more concentrated in Canada than in the U.S. Bell, Rogers and Corus own the majority of commercial radio stations in English speaking Canada, with Stingray being a smaller player. This has resulted in the same sort of staff reductions, nationalized, homogenized playlists and canned programming on radio that the American conglomerates are known for, but on an order of magnitude more in Canada.

CanCon is a double-edged sword. The county's homegrown music industry would have struggled without it because there's so much cultural influence from the U.S., and so much money behind the music and entertainment industries in the U.S.. The Canadian government's initiatives have helped create world-class music, film and video production industries there. CanCon requirements on radio are pretty onerous though, resulting in songs being played more often than warranted, and overplayed well past their expiration date.

On the positive side, the Canadian content adds a level depth and variety to Canadian radio stations not heard in the U.S. Overall the initiatives have been a success for the nation and the pros seem to outweigh the cons. Other countries have similar mandates. I think Australia's rules require radio to play an even higher percentage of domestic music than Canada, for instance.



So much of the world's music and entertainment is produced in the U.S., it's appreciated around the globe. Canadians live in such close proximity to the United States, and share so much in the way of language and culture, that it's easy for them to consume readily-available U.S. media and entertainment. They also export some great music, and some of your favorite American movies and TV shows are probably filmed in Canada and/or had post-production done there.



That station is in my regular rotation and they do an excellent job. The program I described is essentially a AAA format. Even in the U.S., AAA stations have broad and diverse playlists so I can see how someone who doesn't like the format might describe it as a dumpster fire.

Likely adding to your friend's perception, the CBC is Canada's public broadcaster, and Radio 2 (CBC Music) also has blocks of classical music and other programming, not unlike many NPR stations in the U.S. Some people like public radio, some don't. I sense a strong anti-government tone from your comments so I'm not surprised at your opinions. Fortunately for both you and your friend there are many radio stations to choose from in each country and you can pick something else if you don't like it.

I agree with your comments on some of these Canadian radio companies. Stingray does a very very good job. On the other hand, some of the other broadcasters don’t measure up. In Vancouver, there are two stingray owned stations (though unfortunately not programming with content that I particularly care for). Corus and Rogers compete for classic hits in this market, and neither one does a very good job (but I’ll give Corus points for being live and local all day).

I’ve never really been a public radio guy, but I can appreciate that Radio 2 tries to provide a broad range of programming. Most of it isn’t for me, but it seems that there is an audience for it.

 

[AgentOfChange]

That is a fascinating report. Many thanks.

The organization or group that did the focus group needs to read up on the psychology of such sessions, as they did an awful lot wrong.

The first thing wrong was size. If you go beyond 8 to 12 people, there are too many for individual feelings to be explored and examined. You get lots of superficial stuff, but nothing deep and actionable.

Second, you should do such sessions in sets. Younger women, older women. Younger men, Older men. That sort of thing. If you have a mixed group you get an immediate "alfa male" or woman, and many will hardly participate, even if called on.

Third, the exploratory nature of different music types or styles has to be accompanied with pods of representative songs. Otherwise, you get different interpretations of terminology.

But your observations are interesting.

That being said ... there's still plenty of solid gold nuggets FordRanger797 has been kind enough to share with us.

The trouble with ANY business these days (and has been for decades), whether it be radio or rice milk production, the overwhelming majority of businesses market to any and everyone, but appeal to no-one.

Commercial on-the-air radio stations are a commodity.

What I mean by that is they operate the same old-school stoic way, and don't clearly define who their perfect client avatar is, and give them what they want, because they're playing a finite game by competing for the best ratings position, when they should be focused on playing an infinite game, by honouring their perfect client avatar and delivering exactly what it is they want, and improving on it year after year after year.

I'm of the opinion each station, online or offline ... take their LISTENER on a hero's journey, because the listener (hero) wants to be heard and acknowledged for giving their most prized and finite resource they have to their station of choice.

Their time.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Tim

 

[fordranger797]

That being said ... there's still plenty of solid gold nuggets FordRanger797 has been kind enough to share with us.

The trouble with ANY business these days (and has been for decades), whether it be radio or rice milk production, the overwhelming majority of businesses market to any and everyone, but appeal to no-one.

Commercial on-the-air radio stations are a commodity.

What I mean by that is they operate the same old-school stoic way, and don't clearly define who their perfect client avatar is, and give them what they want, because they're playing a finite game by competing for the best ratings position, when they should be focused on playing an infinite game, by honouring their perfect client avatar and delivering exactly what it is they want, and improving on it year after year after year.

I'm of the opinion each station, online or offline ... take their LISTENER on a hero's journey, because the listener (hero) wants to be heard and acknowledged for giving their most prized and finite resource they have to their station of choice.

Their time.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Tim

Thank you for the feedback, Tim. I agree, time is valuable. What incentive do I have to listen to radio when I can just as easily get the content I want from other sources? If radio wants to survive, it has to at least put some effort into being different and better than the alternative choices.

I enjoy listening to the radio to hear music that I like/know, to discover something I may have not heard before, and have the chance to rediscover music that I like (but may have forgotten about). I also agree with the participants of this focus group when they highlight the importance of personality. A good host can indeed make a difference. On the radio stations I like to listen to, I find that the host often is allowed to do more than simply read a liner card. Instead, they get to engage with the audience, provide some interesting information about the music, and talk about the local community.

I feel like we often hear about how radio is still very much relevant to the average person in 2023 (albeit less so for people on the younger side of the spectrum). That’s great, but I’m not sure if it will stay that way if some companies continue to apply a Control + V approach to their programming.

I worked for a small market radio station at one time that did try to appeal to everyone, and I’m really not sure if anyone really liked the programming all that much. If nothing else, at least personality and engagement drove much of the content.

 

[davideduardo]

What I mean by that is they operate the same old-school stoic way, and don't clearly define who their perfect client avatar is,

Please define what, in this context, a "client avatar" is. I can say that I don't follow this at all.

 

[gr8oldies]

Please define what, in this context, a "client avatar" is. I can say that I don't follow this at all.

Buyer persona?

 

[Kelly A]

Please define what, in this context, a "client avatar" is. I can say that I don't follow this at all.

I think he's talking about a more 'personalized', or individual context.
Pandora, Spotify or whatever stream where you can build your own personal preferences would apply to that. (Realize I'm not telling you anything new) broadcasting is BROADcasting.