"Oldies" Are Being Recruited

[thelastdj]

Re: "Oldies"

Lee,

Ponder this one if you will...

Since you had LOYAL listeners, and know the difference, let's go back to today's situation. If we agree that most stations look alike, sound alike and don't "differentiate" themselves from the pack...

My argument to the ad agencies would be that advertising on MY station is more EFFECTIVE use of the Client's money...

The easy way out for the ad agencies is the scattershot approach: throw enough crap against the wall and something is bound to stick. But if you can PROVE that your listeners stick with you and don't channel hop, common sense says they are more apt to pay attention to the commercial. When I do listen to radio, I shudder at the horrible, lackluster approach by the on-air talent to commercials.

For the most part, it's because they're young and don't understand. Heck, they don't like to listen to commercials either. But you must CONNECT with the audience at commercial time just like you do when you play the songs they want to hear. If you pitch a campaign to the advertisers that you care, how can they not at least give you an opportunity to put up or shut up? Of course, you'll never get the chance if you don't ask.

Remember, those young studs at the ad agencies think they're smarter than you. In a lot of cases, that's correct, but not in all of them. It takes a TEAM effort of the station, the agency and the client to reach the goal. I would argue than anything less than advertising on a station where the listeners are actually paying attention and NOT changing channels is detrimental to the goal.

Lee, I've never sold for radio, but I'm sure of one thing. Once you get past the superficial crap radio executives will throw at you about how they're different (all companies think that by the way), you'll discover that sales is sales. Salespeople come with different strengths and weaknesses but first and foremost, they have to be thick skinned, resist intimidation, and provide value. If you can do that, you can sell in any arena.

The decision makers at ad agencies are kids, much younger than us. When you mention "Boomers" to them, they think of their parents...you have to get them to forget that prejudice and think of us just another demographic. One with more time to listen, more money to spend, and dying for someone to sell them.

Of course my opinion and a buck will get you a cup of bad coffee, but I assure you, I believe it.

Nice kicking this around with you...

 

[LeeSmith]

Re: "Oldies"

Last:

You make an interesting point and we tried a few sales promo campaigns which got clients on-air for a super-low intro price just to show them we could bring warm bodies across the doorway of the advertiser even though we may not have been the type of format the client would normally have bought. While some were sufficiently impressed with the results to do a second or third buy, the problem with that approach was that since we almost gave away the product as an intro, getting them up a normal rate was darned near impossible. At the peak of our desperation, we had some "intro spots" on-air for about 2 bucks a piece! Not much profit margin in that ... LOL. Also, word gets around fast as to what you're charging ... then you end up cutting yourself off at the knees with regular clients who feel ripped off..... and rightfully so if they hear a competing account on-air for super-cheap rates.

We even tried a lengthy period where we urged our listeners to phone advertisers and say that even though they might not be buying their product right away, they would bear them in mind for the future ... as a measure of support for the station and show the signal reached a responsive audience.

One other big trend we couldn't buck was "top-down buying" ... this is where an agency just places orders with the top 3 or 4 rated stations in the market and to heck with the stragglers. This in addition to the ability of large group stations to cut price on you like crazy was also a contributor. Once a client's ad budget is tied up with contracts, you just can't bust loose any new money regardless of the quality of "your pitch."

One example I thought of a few years ago was to compare radio formats to dogs. Both Greyhounds and Beagles are bred to hunt rabbits. If you go to a Greyhound track and enter a Beagle to chase the fake rabbit, not only are you going to lose the race and your entry fee, but everyone at the track is also going to laugh you out of town and become convinced you are an idiot for trying something new & unproven.

Anyway, our best efforts were just not enough as a stand-alone and attracting new money to continue to subsidize the losses was impossible. If I'd had a "Sugar Daddy" who just loved the station and had no regard to money, the format would still be the same and I'd still be the owner. As it is, I was very, very fortunate to escape with a few bucks in my jeans and recoup most of my initial investment.

My biggest gain in selling out was the mental relief of not having my brain spinning at 10,000 RPM even in my sleep. I can't tell you how many times I was certain I was about 15 seconds away from a mental breakdown or a heart attack if someone threw just one more problem on me at the wrong moment.... and that would last for weeks at a time.


Lee

 

[radiolover78]

Re: "Oldies"

> But, he is right.
>
> They DO have the income but it's not $$$ advertisers are
> currently interested in. Whether that's a correct or
> incorrect strategy by advertisers is beside the point. It
> is what it is.

Right, technically, it isn't "the consultants" fault or the radio companies fault, like CBS Radio. Companies were losing money since they were still broadcasting the oldies format.

As I have said many times, the advertisers have the power. They are simply not interested in the 55+ crowd and radio companies would continue to lose money if they continued to "serve" that crowd.

I'll say it again, "the advertisers have the power". Eduardo and Cat are basically saying the same thing.

>

 

[thelastdj]

Re: "Oldies"

Lee,

It's fun to chat back and forth, but let's not demean your situation. I kind of feel like an armchair quarterback waxing philosophical but you lived through the pain. The good news is...you lived...

At the risk of sounding like a "beagle", I'll throw this out.

You have to be on the offense with the ad agencies, especially if you don't fall in the "top down" category. That's a theoretical "safe bet" for the client, but hey, if that was working so well, the client would simply buy more of what was working with the extra profit radio was generating for him. As long as the Client is looking for ways to maximize his investment, the agency has an obligation to investigate what you have to offer.

As far "giving it away"...fill in your choice, but "any _____ can give it away"

The hardest thing to do is to hold firm and demand your worth, but remember, this is supposed to be a team effort. In order for any complex relationship like agency/client/station to work, EVERYONE has to admit they're all in business to make money... so EVERYONE has to make enough proft it keep the doors open. If I'm the salesperson, how can I expect to be paid if the company isn't getting paid? Further, if I help the company make more money than they expected, I should get more than I expected. It's called incentive. Of course, you don't want to put all your eggs in one basket, but you can't expect to run your operation on a continuous basis from the same old baskets. That's why you need "support" salespeople to keep existing clients happy and more aggressive "door openers" who keep bringing in new baskets. Why do I have the image of a giant Easter Bunny in my head all of a sudden...

At any rate, I firmly believe that the Boomer market can be sold to. If you have established a base of LOYAL listeners you've done it by earning their trust and respect. Isn't that what the client is trying to do with his product via the commercials? And further, since you've already accomplished the task that they haven't, why should you make less? Seems to me you have an advantage, the hard part is convincing the agency and the client. That is what salesmanship is all about. That's why you get paid the big bucks. You have to EARN them!

Take two tylenol and write me tomorrow....

 

[TheFonz]

Re: "Oldies"

>

[Whether they are right or wrong is immaterial. The fact is
> that advertisers in general do not want to reach the 55+
> group.
>
> 1. Costs too much to make a sale due to brand preferneces.
> 2. The myth of boomer wealth.
> 3. Most products not designed for 55+
> 4. Fear of the "Oldsmobile syndrome" (very real)
> >
> > Radio has left the boomers . . . the boomers have not left radio.]


What is so often missed in these discussions (understandably, since many posters are in the radio business) is the fact that radio couldn't sell advertising for today's 55+ group when that group was 25+. Newspapers were always the advertiser's preference. So it seems like it's the advertiser who's not interested in changing his buying habits.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: "Oldies"

>
> My argument to the ad agencies would be that advertising on
> MY station is more EFFECTIVE use of the Client's money...

At which point they would laugh and throw you on your ear out on the sidewalk.

Ad agdencies do NOT determine the marketing taarget of a product or service. the client does. The client picks an agency who can best handle the advertising that the advertiser's marketing department specifies.

In other wordes, the client tells the agency what age, sex, ethnicity, goergraphy, PRISM lifestyle or whatever the product was designed for and which groups offer the biggest sales opportunities. The agency says, "yes sir," and places the ads they make that appeal to this group.

Trying to tell and agency to change its client's marketing plan is simply the most absurd thing I have ever heard. You are, in essence, telling the agency to disobey the mandate of its client and to lose the account.

> The easy way out for the ad agencies is the scattershot
> approach: throw enough crap against the wall and something
> is bound to stick. But if you can PROVE that your listeners
> stick with you and don't channel hop, common sense says they
> are more apt to pay attention to the commercial. When I do
> listen to radio, I shudder at the horrible, lackluster
> approach by the on-air talent to commercials.

Immaterial. Do you think P&G goes to its agencies and says, "throw some crap against the wall?" No. they have the most sophisticated consumer research on the planet, and they know not only who might buy, but who will buy with the least marketing cost in the greatest quantities. If that group has a favorite color, they know that , too, and incorporate it in the label. then they go to the agency and tell them who the customer is, and ask for a campaign built around that customer.

There is a reason Budweiser does not advertise to 45 year old women. And AB knows that many do drink beer.
>
> For the most part, it's because they're young and don't
> understand.

Huh? Agency ad buyers are given instructions like "Detroit 600 weekly GRPs against Men 25-34, all ethnicities. No talk formats, not controversy."

That is it. they try, then, to get thelowest rates or CPPs for the client against deleiver of that demo. Media buyers and planners have nothing, nada, zilch to do with the target of the campaign. The media director may help determine the mix of media, but witing the goal of the reach objectives of the campaign.

> Remember, those young studs at the ad agencies think they're
> smarter than you. In a lot of cases, that's correct, but
> not in all of them. It takes a TEAM effort of the station,
> the agency and the client to reach the goal. I would argue
> than anything less than advertising on a station where the
> listeners are actually paying attention and NOT changing
> channels is detrimental to the goal.

Irrelevant. Ignores the way advertising is done.
>
> The decision makers at ad agencies are kids, much younger
> than us.

Ad agencies do creative and placement and PR and stuff based on a client's specifications. Ad agencies don't design products, although they may be involved in packaging based on the target appeal of the product. You are blaming agencies when the decision comes from the marketing management at the client. Don't shoot the messenger.

Geeze...

 

[davideduardo]

Re: "Oldies"

>
> You have to be on the offense with the ad agencies,

Stop there. This is the real world. If you becme agressive with an agency, you will never get a second chance to talk. It is so easy in every radio market to buy around a station that is arrogant, overpriced or rude.

And if you consistently try to sell an agency something its clients don't want, you will not be let past the lobby.

It would be quicker to just jump in front of a train, and a lot cheaper, too.

 

[Mouth1390]

Re: "Oldies"

> Hi Folks:
>
> I write from the perspective of a former owner of a
> stand-alone FM in a 750,000 person market that programmed to
> people over 45. My age is 56 and came up through the "Ops
> Side" of radio. Format was a combination of Adult Standards
> mixed with suitable Oldies. I pulled an on-air shift on
> Saturday night just to make sure I remained in touch with
> the equipment and audience. About a year ago, I sold out.
>
> David Eduardo has nailed it right in the middle of the
> bullseye. The first thing to understand is that advertising
> agency time buyers ultimately program radio stations. This
> previously unkown-to-me revelation came as a surprise and
> was a very hard learned lesson. It almost cost me my life
> savings and house.
>
> Ad agency buyers control where the advertising dollars are
> placed and they buy numbers based on what their client wants
> for demos. If they are not placed with your station, you go
> broke. The time buyers I met were typically in their mid to
> late 30's.
>
> To avoid going broke and the station going dark, you have to
> chase the money so you can pay the bills. That's the harsh
> reality. From a business perspective, if that means
> programming schlock crud that you'd never personally listen
> to, so be it. You do what you need to do so the doors stay
> open and the transmitter power bill remains out of the hands
> of a collection agency.
>
> Our 5.5 share was made up of a very loyal audience. Despite
> our best attempts, we were just about never able to crack
> and refute the reseach material circulated among ad agencies
> which tells them older listeners just weren't worth spending
> the money on. Managers of Ad Agencies readily agreed that
> the "elderly" do indeed control the majority of wealth in
> the country and are in decision making positions of power in
> companies by the time they are over 55.
>
> The reasons repeatedly told to us were:
>
> 1- Entrenched buying patterns. IE; If you've brushed your
> teeth with Crest for 30 years, how many radio commercials do
> you think it would take to make you buy your first tube of
> Colgate no matter how much you enjoyed the radio station?
> It is just not considered to be an economical expenditure of
> clients money for the return on investment.
>
> 2- Non-impulsive buying habits. IE: If you are going to buy
> a new car, someone "older" is going to buy based on a lot
> more research that an ad for "Joe's Used Cars" saying they
> have a nice Mustang on the lot and your girlfriend says
> "Gee, you'd look cool in that."
>
> Radio has indeed left .. or are in the process of ....
> leaving the older listener. They have to if they are going
> to survive.
>
> There are some accounts that want to reach the older
> listener, but they are few & far between. There are only so
> many funeral parlors, wheel chair dealers, hearing aid
> companies, National Will Kits, retirement investment fund
> managers, etc. which specialize in serving customers over
> 55. There are just not enough of these accounts to provide
> a sufficiently large economic base to run a radio station
> with on a long term basis. Further, listeners react
> adversely to a diet of sponsors which tell them "you're
> gonna kick the bucket soon, so you'd better prepare now!"
> Further, the smaller accounts not represented by agencies
> required a lot of maintenance which out of porportion to the
> revenues generated.
>
> The super-unfortunate thing about radio is the fact that in
> North America this is a business with basically a single
> source of revenue .... commercials. If we had some form of
> "free money machine" we could crank up whenever the bank
> balance got a little tight, I'd love it.
>
> Sorry if this sounds cynical, but the listeners are just a
> block of people to be presented to the door of an
> advertiser. If the clients don't want "those type of
> people" there isn't a lot you can do about it. You can offer
> a nice pool of clear, cold water to a horse, ..... but you
> can't force it to drink.
>
> Regards to all,
> Lee Smith
>

Lee, as I was sitting here reading your post, I kept saying to myself, 'yeah, he knows the drill' because it probably is the universal experience of every small market radio station owner as well.

I read your subsequent post and I almost laughed out loud because I have also tried some of those tactics to draw the bigger fish. And after you have banged your head against a wall long enough, it does dawn on you that all you have accomplished is give yourself a headache (I hope that's grammatically correct).
The smaller market station and the small station in a market really have no choice but to rely strictly on local direct business. I have seen national and regional advertising agency business fall off almost completely due simply to the changing dynamics of the medium. Put another way, the dollars only go three or four deep in a market. . .so if you're the small station in a larger market or a small market station, you are out of luck.

Let me ask you this: did you ever have the experience of waking up at 3:00 in the morning about ten days before Thanksgiving and realize that you've only got about 60% of your December sales goal booked ? I have to tell you. . .fear can be a very motivating factor.

Anyway, I wanted to thank you for a post that I could relate to completely and David Eduardo deals in fact and that's what makes his posts so compelling. Thanks again.

 

[LeeSmith]

Re: "Oldies"

David:

My thanks for an excellent Executive Summary of the the way things work.

Lee

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: "Oldies"

Lee, reading your posts on this thread was very eye-opening and eductational. As an A/E for a very struggling AM oldies station I can relate to even the two dollar spots!<P ID="signature">______________
Have a Happy New Year!
http://www.thebig8.net/have_a_happy_new_year_with_cklw.mp3</P>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: "Oldies"

> David:
>
> My thanks for an excellent Executive Summary of the the way
> things work.
>

And, thanks for your intelligent and reality-based posts. As WGLI1290 mentioned, anyone hwo has woken up in the night worrying about revenue pacing knows what we are talking about.

 

[MikeDane]

Re: "Oldies"

> >
> > You have to be on the offense with the ad agencies,
>
> Stop there. This is the real world. If you becme agressive
> with an agency, you will never get a second chance to talk.
> It is so easy in every radio market to buy around a station
> that is arrogant, overpriced or rude.

David, you had better go back and re-read the post. No where
in it does he say agressive, arrogant, overpriced or rude.
What he did say and you quote it, "is to be on the offense
with." I think a better word would be proactive. Ask any
good salesman. He/She will tell you the same thing. Sales
will not just fall into your lap. You have to go out and
get it. You network and contact, you gather information.
You help and do favors for.
The best salesman I ever knew had files on every client.
He could tell you all kinds of information such as hobbies,
family, favorite sports/teams etc. Thats proactive

>
> And if you consistently try to sell an agency something its
> clients don't want, you will not be let past the lobby.

As long as a salesman is not any of the things you mentioned
and is friendly and helpful there should be no problem. It's
that networking/proactive thing again. One of the books my
friend gave me that was great was by Harvey McKay (sp) and I
think it was Swim with the Sharks (I havn't read it in awhile).
It has lots of good information in there.
Also for the sake of brevity I am leaving a whole lot out.

Mike Dane
WSTB-FM 88.9
SundayOldiesJukebox.com

 

[davideduardo]

Re: "Oldies"

>
> David, you had better go back and re-read the post. No where
>
> in it does he say agressive, arrogant, overpriced or rude.
> What he did say and you quote it, "is to be on the offense
> with." I think a better word would be proactive.

You can not be proactive with an agency when it comes to the demost that they have been told to deliver by a client. That is tantamount to telling the agency and the advertiser that they know nothing about the product while you do.

> Ask any
> good salesman. He/She will tell you the same thing. Sales
> will not just fall into your lap. You have to go out and
> get it. You network and contact, you gather information.

And you do not interfere with an agency's relationship with its clients. I have been a DOS, GSM and NSM with great success in the past, and I got to my goals by delivering a product that was int he demos that most radi buys made me eligible for. I did not do it by trying to get agencies to change the demos specs ona campaign or I would have been laughed out of the building and barred from ever visiting again.

> You help and do favors for.
> The best salesman I ever knew had files on every client.
> He could tell you all kinds of information such as hobbies,
> family, favorite sports/teams etc. Thats proactive

At agencies, you can create relationships... but no matter how good the relationships, you can not change the demos the client ordered the agency to deliver.
>
> >
> > And if you consistently try to sell an agency something
> its
> > clients don't want, you will not be let past the lobby.
>
> As long as a salesman is not any of the things you mentioned
> and is friendly and helpful there should be no problem. It's
> that networking/proactive thing again. One of the books my
> friend gave me that was great was by Harvey McKay (sp) and I
>
> think it was Swim with the Sharks (I havn't read it in
> awhile).
> It has lots of good information in there.
> Also for the sake of brevity I am leaving a whole lot out.

I can tell you have never visited an ad agency. By contrast, my first visit was to McCann-Erickson in 1964. In the next few years, in the market I was in, my stations took over 50% of all agency billing in the market, despite being only 15% of the station count. I did it by delivering formats with ratings in demos that the agencies wanted.
>
> Mike Dane
> WSTB-FM 88.9
> SundayOldiesJukebox.com
>