Re: How media is bought
> > If you think companies like P&G and Coke and McDonalds
> don't
> > do the best research that can be done, you are sorely
> > mistaken. Knowing who your customer is is critical in
> > competitive American business. Billions are spent each
> year
> > on consumer research by these companies and it is top
> > secret.
>
> I do think it is flawed, when I hear people bitch about the
> same ol on radio, yet research says that this is what they
> want.
Themodel for marketing at the advertiser level is proven going back to the 20's. It is about asking people what they like and buy and correlating with sales data. It's pretty standard.
Radio research does not tell us people want anything different in 25-54 or 18-49 than what they get. Obviously, int he small markets where the non ehtnic erosion is more noticable, the problem is local radio economics of what owners can afford to do in low billing markets.
>
>
> >
> > This is just like the many, many millions radio companies
> > spend on research (not to be confused with ratings) to
> find
> > out about their product.
> >
> > : The agency
> > > is just a pawn
> >
> > No, the agency provides a specific service, just like a
> car
> > painting company does.
>
> Then they are a pawn
So is a any company that serves as an intermediary, such as the US Postal Service or FedEx or American Airlines, an architect or a house painter. They provide service on demand to precise specifications.
>
> > Advertisers tell agencies what to do, and they do it.
>
> Pawn.
Any service business provides services the buyer wants. Same in advertising.
>
>
> > Clients have ad managers who look at every campaign and
> > media plan. They know and approve of the campaigns and
> > placements. There is absolutely nothing foolish about a
> well
> > done CPP based ad campaign, and this is how radio and TV
> and
> > cable are bought.
>
> There is no CPP when the "P" is a 25 year old male looking
> for other content while the ad plays. Maybe you're lucky
> someone in a waiting room or stuck in a cab hears it.
A point represents actual listening. It does not represent people who are not listening.
>
> > The station is a medium. You know what that term means? It
>
> > means "intermediary" and that is becasue radio or tv or
> > print or any other form of the media is a conduit between
> > consumers and advertisers. As such, we are selected or not
>
> > by advertisers based on the size and cost efficiency of
> our
> > audience delivery.
>
> Spending the last 18 years in radio, I think I know a
> definition or two, but thanks for trying to clear it up.
> Let's say you were the client and you had your choice as to
> where to place ads. Which "medium" would you choose?
Depends on the product and my own research on where I can get them most efficiently. Each medium has specific advantages and disadvantages.
>
> >
> > Gads! I am telling you advertisers are increasingly asking
>
> > for 18-49 and not 25-54. Not radio, not agencies.
> Advertisers.
>
> You're missing the point. IF you, as a CLIENT, wanted
> radio, do you want to target a demo that is less likely to
> use radio and has OTHER MEANS of entertainment over an older
> demo that has long established radio habits?
The client generall doe snot select the media mix. The agency presents plans, designed to maximize reach and frequency and lower costs. With the client, they determine how to proceed. Radio is such asmall part, it is usually included for its low cost to supplement.
>
> > Who cares what other media younger persons use.
>
> You better if you don't want to find work outside of radio.
So far, the teens come to radio when they no longer have time to spend on alternate media on all occasions. Any change is going to take a decade or more.
I am seing growth in 18-24 on our younger targeted stations.
>
> > They have used print since before the invention of radio,
> > and radio is one of many media options an advertiser uses
> as
> > appropriate.
>
> But how appropriate IS it compared to other media options
> TODAY vs 10-20 years ago?
Again, radio is priced on points in each market. Yoiu pay for what you get. It does not matter to an advertiser if half the people no longer use radio (it is only 6% now) but how much each listener that is there costs to reach.
>
> >
> > They buy radio based on audience delivery. Not potential
> > audience, but real delivery. And they also buy against the
>
> > younger demos in web ads, billboards, and even print!
>
> You can't turn off a billboard (you COULD choose to ignore
> it) and web ads pop up wherever they want as you enter an
> exit Yahoo, Google etc. People will seek out magazines and
> newspapers based on interest and have to have a fixed scope
> and if that interest is there, so be it. We're talking
> about radio, with limited spectrum and choices for a given
> area (conventional AM FM) vs other ways to listen to content
> (I-Pod, CD, Sattelite). You can have an endless number of
> magazines on a rack but that's not the same on the radio
> dial.
Well, right now, 4 years agter XM launched, radio reaaches around 94% of all Americans, within one share of the reach in 1965. Whiners appear to be numerous... all they are is loud.
>
>
> > The fact is, campaigns in any medium are quantifiable
> based
> > on number of impressions. Opinion is not a part of it. It
> is
> > simply "how many people did we deliver our message to" and
>
> > advertisers know that in any medium, a percentage is
> > ignored... and that is part of the calculations of the
> > necessary reach and frequency to make a sales impression.
>
>
> Fair enough
>
>
> > Well, their radio listening is off. They may be using more
>
> > TV, or they got satellite, wich are easy to use. The fact
> > is, they have achoice and they use less radio.
>
> Their radio listening is off because of fewer choices. Did
> you expect them to continue to listen when they are being
> ignored?
We don't care what 55+ do as we do not, as an industry, address them specifically as the economic model for that does not exist.
>
> > Guess where the cntent will come from. Content is not
> > someone with Winamp streaming 500 songs. Content is talent
>
> > and putting together a show. The same people who control
> > content now will provide it on different channels later...
>
> > and they will price advertising with the same criteria
> they
> > do today.
>
> I gather you are talking about HD and multicasting?
No, I am talking about providing content through any distribution channel available, not an off air signal. I can stream, podcast, and even wifi or wimax my content if the economics make sense. We had 5 channels on XM, but it made no sense and we stopped.
> Fine.
> Ignoring the engineering problems, let's talk about
> marketing. When will iBqiuity get their act together and
> realize they need to be the driving force behind the
> promotion of this INSTEAD of leaving it to die at the feat
> of broadcasters?
The consortium is putting hundreds of millions against HD as the Chinese launch receivers during 2006. Right now, the focus is on infrastructure... getting statins on. But this is only asmall part of expanding delivery channels, and not even the best one.
>
> I give you Crutchfield, Circuit City, Best Buy, Sharper
> Image. These catalogs of late have had more than their fair
> share of features for I-Pods and accessories. Where is the
> HD stuff? I know where I can buy a reclining massage
> lounger that has a port where I can plug in my I-Pod, but if
> I walk into Best Buy and ask for an HD receiver, you get
> blank stares.
Mass market devices are a year off.
>
>
> > You are calling major marketers stupid? Mhat is really
> > funny? Where did you get your marketing MBA?
>
> Yes I am. They are stupid RIGHT NOW if they HONESTLY feel
> they are getting the right bang for the buck for their ads.
> Screw the degree, look at the forest, understand the other
> choices available and adapt instead of sailing guns ablaze
> into the abyss.
They pày for the listeners they reach. They do not pay for listeners they do not reach. This is perfect economic sense.
>
> >
> > Let's use beer again... as an exapmple. Beer companies do
> > tons of research, both perceptual and sales analysis. They
>
> > know that most beer consumption is by males, and in the
> > of-age to about 45 demo. They know that the sports fans
> are
> > the biggest group within this demo in terms of
> consumption.
>
> How about people with MBA's who are out of work?
Small demo.
>
> > And they know that people outside this group generally
> > consume so little beer as to be inefficient targets, where
>
> > consumption does not pay for the advertising.
>
> Haven't met my drunk 60 year old uncle, eh?
We all have a funny uncle. But the big consumption is not with drunks, apparently, either.
> radio continues to overserve very narrow demos.
> >
> > You are blaming radio for the way marketing and
> advertising
> > works. Get real. This has NOTHING to do with radio or, for
>
> > that matter, with the media. It is about highly
> > sophisticated marketing.
>
> It has become so convoluted that it has boxed itself in the
> corner (or rather, it has outgrown what radio has to offer
> for effectiveness). This is what happens when the house of
> cards becomes to tall to support itself.
Advertisers pick media for delivery, not non delivery. And delivery is quantifiable in all media.
We know that. However, I said that advertisers were
> > increasingly looking for 18-49 and the subsets of that
> demo.
> > Like Men 18-34 or women 35-44 or Hispanic females 25-49.
> the
> > fact is, there are very few ad buys in mass circulation
> > media for anything outside this.
>
> And while newspaper and TV will be able to benefit, radio
> cannot IF it cannot supply content to draw in listeners and
> that includes teens and people who have well established
> radio habits.
Teens are not of interest. 55+ are not of interest. We do not go after them, just as exterminators do not promote the riddance of tigers from homes in Syaracuse. When there is no need, there is no service.
>
