• 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

So, let me get this straight.....

C

captainrexk

After reading all of this on the VH/BOB/JACK stuff.....am I to assume that:

1) This format is just a fad, as was FM Talk. Sure, Jammin' Oldies failed to take hold in Pittsburgh for a number of reasons, but 104.7 is succeeding because they advertise and get their product noticed through, grit your teeth, BILLBOARDS! I don't see a lot of TV ad time, sans WDVE, but I do see billboards whenever I drive and walk through the city.

2) An ad agent would advise a client NOT to spend money with a radio station based upon a personal belief? If that client TOLD you they wanted to spend money with said station, you'd still tell them NO? It's THEIR money, NOT yours!

3) IMHO, VH/BOB/JACK will succeed because it's a broader demo audience base. With that, there will also more people who DON'T like the format. Changing from a more specific format like classic rock to VH widens the audience and changes the P1 audience from 35-54 males to 25-54, and more likely focusing more on females as well. And you will get more people at least sampling the format and thus forming their own opinion. It will also allow radio sales to expand their potential clientele as well. So, if you want to advise a client NOT to advertise, then the station salesperson will more than likely call on your client's competition without hesitation. Turning away business isn't good. But, as with any new business, success depends on getting your product out to the people as much as possible through whatever means possible. BOB just can't blend in with the crowd and expect to succeed on gimmick alone.

4) Radio is doomed to fail and die. IMHO, Nothing outside radio will kill it, it'll be done from the inside if it happens at all. For a good number of reasons that's been pretty much discussed here. Movies are killing themselves because Hollywood can't seem to create original thinking, and TV has remedied that with "reality TV." Enough said.

5) When people intelligently counteract your arguments, name-calling and sarcasm is the next phase. Now, THAT'S really professional. If you're beaten, take it like a man. Don't be so dead-set in your ways. That's what got this region in the mess they're in now.

6) For those who resort to leveling cheap shots aganst the City Paper, remember that even before Steel City Media owned it, it was A FREE PAPER! Now, say what you will about BOB/WLTJ advertising in it, remember Infinity owns that E-Resource tabloid, and doesn't hesitate to advertise their stations through that.
 
> 2) An ad agent would advise a client NOT to spend money with
> a radio station based upon a personal belief? If that
> client TOLD you they wanted to spend money with said
> station, you'd still tell them NO? It's THEIR money, NOT
> yours!


That whole illogical thing has come up more than once here. It also spins along the lines of, "My clients told me they don't want this," which is basically a fresh way of saying, "Everybody I know agrees with me, so I'm right."
 
> After reading all of this on the VH/BOB/JACK stuff.....am I
> to assume that:
>
> 1) This format is just a fad, as was FM Talk. Sure, Jammin'
> Oldies failed to take hold in Pittsburgh for a number of
> reasons, but 104.7 is succeeding because they advertise and
> get their product noticed through, grit your teeth,
> BILLBOARDS! I don't see a lot of TV ad time, sans WDVE, but
> I do see billboards whenever I drive and walk through the
> city.

No, Talk was a well established radio format that had been around for a long, long time. Moving it over to FM to create "FM talk" was only a major innovation in the minds of people who don't understand that listeners don't make as big a deal over whether a station is on AM or FM as radio professionals do.

WPGB is succeeding because they got lots of talk radio fans to sample their programming at first through the use of various advertising media, and they KEPT those listeners by offereing programming that the listeners liked ONCE THEY TUNED IN AND SAMPLED IT.

> 2) An ad agent would advise a client NOT to spend money with
> a radio station based upon a personal belief? If that
> client TOLD you they wanted to spend money with said
> station, you'd still tell them NO? It's THEIR money, NOT
> yours!

No, an ad agency would be hired by a client to advise the client on how to get the biggest bang for their advertising buck, based on what the agency learned through testing. If someone were to claim that what the people at the agency learned through marketing research was merely a "belief", then that person would be as mistaken as someone who thinks that the songs that music directors put on the air are selected because the programmer merely "believes" that people will like them.

And, if a client thought they knew better than an ad agency how to do their advertising, then the client wouldn't bother with an agency in the first place. Ad agencies sell their expertise, that is the product they deal in. Clients who don't want that expertise won't hire the agency.

> 3) IMHO, VH/BOB/JACK will succeed because it's a broader
> demo audience base. With that, there will also more people
> who DON'T like the format. Changing from a more specific
> format like classic rock to VH widens the audience and
> changes the P1 audience from 35-54 males to 25-54, and more
> likely focusing more on females as well. And you will get
> more people at least sampling the format and thus forming
> their own opinion. It will also allow radio sales to expand
> their potential clientele as well. So, if you want to
> advise a client NOT to advertise, then the station
> salesperson will more than likely call on your client's
> competition without hesitation. Turning away business isn't
> good. But, as with any new business, success depends on
> getting your product out to the people as much as possible
> through whatever means possible. BOB just can't blend in
> with the crowd and expect to succeed on gimmick alone.

Bob and Jack will fail as advertising media because they appeal to a broad base of people who only want some background noise on their radios, and who don't actually LISTEN to the radio. Jack and Bob are like elevator music, a form of sonic wallpaper. Aside from increasing subliminal awareness of a brand name, it will be ineffective at getting a marketing message communicated to customers.

> 4) Radio is doomed to fail and die. IMHO, Nothing outside
> radio will kill it, it'll be done from the inside if it
> happens at all. For a good number of reasons that's been
> pretty much discussed here. Movies are killing themselves
> because Hollywood can't seem to create original thinking,
> and TV has remedied that with "reality TV." Enough said.

No, "Format" radio programming, as it is currently known, is destined to go the way of scripted programs from yesteryear. Programs with disc jockeys playing songs are destined to be as common on the radio as westerns on television.

> 5) When people intelligently counteract your arguments,
> name-calling and sarcasm is the next phase. Now, THAT'S
> really professional. If you're beaten, take it like a man.
> Don't be so dead-set in your ways. That's what got this
> region in the mess they're in now.

Don't blame the people in this region. Blame Dr. Detroit.

> 6) For those who resort to leveling cheap shots aganst the
> City Paper, remember that even before Steel City Media owned
> it, it was A FREE PAPER! Now, say what you will about
> BOB/WLTJ advertising in it, remember Infinity owns that
> E-Resource tabloid, and doesn't hesitate to advertise their
> stations through that.

Any cheap shots leveled at the City Paper are because it is a crappy newspaper filled with badly written content. But, in defense of the City Paper, it has ALWAYS been a crapp newspaper filled with badly written content, and has been so for a long, long time.
 
> > 2) An ad agent would advise a client NOT to spend money
> with
> > a radio station based upon a personal belief? If that
> > client TOLD you they wanted to spend money with said
> > station, you'd still tell them NO? It's THEIR money, NOT
> > yours!
>
>
> That whole illogical thing has come up more than once here.
> It also spins along the lines of, "My clients told me they
> don't want this," which is basically a fresh way of saying,
> "Everybody I know agrees with me, so I'm right."

What is illogical is for a client to pay an ad agency a fee if they intend to tell the agent what to do. If the client already thinks they know the best way to run their advertising campaigns, then the client won't bother using an agency in the first place. There are plenty of advertisers out there who deal directly with the media and content producers.

Hiring an ad agency is like hiring a programming consultant. If the people who run a radio station don't want to take the advice of a consultant, why would they hire one in the first place? It's not much different with an ad agency.
 
> Any cheap shots leveled at the City Paper are because it is
> a crappy newspaper filled with badly written content. But,
> in defense of the City Paper, it has ALWAYS been a crapp
> newspaper filled with badly written content, and has been so
> for a long, long time.
>


Yeah, Rich Lord, who worked at City Paper for a long time, is now on the front page of the Post-Gazette. He's really a bad writer, right? You know less about journalism than you do about radio, if that's even possible.
 
Having also read the Post-Gazette, I stand by what I have said. I will grant that the stray well-written article might have snuck into the City Paper every now and again. Even a blind pig sometimes finds an acorn, right?

But is that all you can find to respond to in that post? An off-topic aside about the City Paper?

> > Any cheap shots leveled at the City Paper are because it
> is
> > a crappy newspaper filled with badly written content. But,
>
> > in defense of the City Paper, it has ALWAYS been a crapp
> > newspaper filled with badly written content, and has been
> so
> > for a long, long time.
> >
>
>
> Yeah, Rich Lord, who worked at City Paper for a long time,
> is now on the front page of the Post-Gazette. He's really a
> bad writer, right? You know less about journalism than you
> do about radio, if that's even possible.
>
 
All the other crap has been done to death, because eventually you strangle the life out of every thread by micro-slicing legitimate points into utter irrelevant nonsense. The rant against City Paper seemed mildly fresh in that context.




> Having also read the Post-Gazette, I stand by what I have
> said. I will grant that the stray well-written article might
> have snuck into the City Paper every now and again. Even a
> blind pig sometimes finds an acorn, right?
>
> But is that all you can find to respond to in that post? An
> off-topic aside about the City Paper?
>
> > > Any cheap shots leveled at the City Paper are because it
>
> > is
> > > a crappy newspaper filled with badly written content.
> But,
> >
> > > in defense of the City Paper, it has ALWAYS been a crapp
>
> > > newspaper filled with badly written content, and has
> been
> > so
> > > for a long, long time.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yeah, Rich Lord, who worked at City Paper for a long time,
>
> > is now on the front page of the Post-Gazette. He's really
> a
> > bad writer, right? You know less about journalism than you
>
> > do about radio, if that's even possible.
> >
>
 
> All the other crap has been done to death, because
> eventually you strangle the life out of every thread by
> micro-slicing legitimate points into utter irrelevant
> nonsense. The rant against City Paper seemed mildly fresh in
> that context.

Yeah, I can see where someone who is accustomed to reading nothing more in-depth than a liner card would find serious discussion of things as "nonesense".

I suppose that when on the one hand you have people who restate things so as to totally change the meaning of what someone else said, but who can do so in brief telegrams about the same length as a liner card, and on the other hand you have someone who attempts to provide some sort of logical argument to demonstrate why what he says makes sense, people like you will pick the former. It makes sense, since you can't handle anything more in-depth than a liner card.
 
Re: So, YOU WANT NONESENSE??

First of all, it's NONSENSE, not NON-E-SENSE.

Besides that, what is NONSENSE, sheer and utter rubbish, is your ponderous pontification on the doom and despair of BOB-FM and I for one am SICK OF IT. GET A CLUE!! It's been on the air for LIKE A WEEK OR TWO!! It takes a YEAR to gauge the ratings after a flip you idiot! Six months minimum!

So shut up about how much it sucks! It's your opinion, yours alone, and no big surprise to me since most everything you write is about how something sucks, someONE sucks, or they're sucking it the wrong way.

Suck it!

>
> Yeah, I can see where someone who is accustomed to reading
> nothing more in-depth than a liner card would find serious
> discussion of things as "nonesense".

>
 
Re: So, YOU WANT NONESENSE??

Pretty much what I'd expect by way of a response from someone who calls himself
"bury m' (BLEEP) in her".

Second, I'm not talking about the freakin' ratings. I'm talking about how the format is nothing but sonic wallpaper that people might tune in to, but not something that they'll LISTEN TO. My clients pay me to increase their sales. As a marketing consultant, my fees are based on how much increase my clients see in their sales. No increase in sales, no fee for me.

Wasting money putting ads on an elevator music station like Bob FM would incur costs on the marketing expense side of the ledger, with no measureable increase in sales on the other side of the ledger. That's why I think it sucks.

As for my typo, if that's all you can comment on, try burying your (BLEEP) somewhere else, like an orifice on your own body.

> First of all, it's NONSENSE, not NON-E-SENSE.
>
> Besides that, what is NONSENSE, sheer and utter rubbish, is
> your ponderous pontification on the doom and despair of
> BOB-FM and I for one am SICK OF IT. GET A CLUE!! It's been
> on the air for LIKE A WEEK OR TWO!! It takes a YEAR to gauge
> the ratings after a flip you idiot! Six months minimum!
>
> So shut up about how much it sucks! It's your opinion, yours
> alone, and no big surprise to me since most everything you
> write is about how something sucks, someONE sucks, or
> they're sucking it the wrong way.
>
> Suck it!
>
> >
> > Yeah, I can see where someone who is accustomed to reading
>
> > nothing more in-depth than a liner card would find serious
>
> > discussion of things as "nonesense".
>
> >
>
 
Re: So, YOU WANT NONESENSE??

We won't address your feeble attempts to make the argument personal, of course.

You can spin it how you like. Point is, RATINGS usually influence to a significant degree where clients choose to spend their ad money on radio. Those RATINGS won't be available for about 9 months. They won't be reliable for a year.

Your decrying the format in the first week means either
A) you think you are privy to information about the success or failure of the format 51 weeks ahead of everybody else... you must be the Oracle of Ratings my friend! or
B) your lamentations are FAR too premature

PS No one cares what you think about the format or the music. What they care about is what a leading share of the market thinks about it, and thereby, what potential clients think about it.

PPS Elevator music/sonic wallpaper is HIGHLY successful in other markets, and has been known to be the #1 station in those market for a long, long time. Example: Miami. If you think the #1 station in a given market won't make money just because YOU wouldn't like the format, then you sadly overestimate your importance.

> Pretty much what I'd expect by way of a response from
> someone who calls himself
> "bury m' (BLEEP) in her".
>
> Second, I'm not talking about the freakin' ratings. I'm
> talking about how the format is nothing but sonic wallpaper
> that people might tune in to, but not something that they'll
> LISTEN TO. My clients pay me to increase their sales. As a
> marketing consultant, my fees are based on how much increase
> my clients see in their sales. No increase in sales, no fee
> for me.
>
> Wasting money putting ads on an elevator music station like
> Bob FM would incur costs on the marketing expense side of
> the ledger, with no measureable increase in sales on the
> other side of the ledger. That's why I think it sucks.
>
> As for my typo, if that's all you can comment on, try
> burying your (BLEEP) somewhere else, like an orifice on your
> own body.
>
> > First of all, it's NONSENSE, not NON-E-SENSE.
> >
> > Besides that, what is NONSENSE, sheer and utter rubbish,
> is
> > your ponderous pontification on the doom and despair of
> > BOB-FM and I for one am SICK OF IT. GET A CLUE!! It's been
>
> > on the air for LIKE A WEEK OR TWO!! It takes a YEAR to
> gauge
> > the ratings after a flip you idiot! Six months minimum!
> >
> > So shut up about how much it sucks! It's your opinion,
> yours
> > alone, and no big surprise to me since most everything you
>
> > write is about how something sucks, someONE sucks, or
> > they're sucking it the wrong way.
> >
> > Suck it!
> >
> > >
> > > Yeah, I can see where someone who is accustomed to
> reading
> >
> > > nothing more in-depth than a liner card would find
> serious
> >
> > > discussion of things as "nonesense".
> >
> > >
> >
>
 
Wait a damn minute!

So now Realist is doing the "my clients" spiel? Isn't that "MrMusic's" act?

Given all the "that's right, you tell 'em" posts between "Music" and "Realist," doesn't this suggest that they're really the same person with two usernames?

I thought so.

All it takes is one person (sometimes with two names) to ruin a board.
 
Re: Wait a damn minute!

> So now Realist is doing the "my clients" spiel? Isn't that
> "MrMusic's" act?
>
> Given all the "that's right, you tell 'em" posts between
> "Music" and "Realist," doesn't this suggest that they're
> really the same person with two usernames?
>
> I thought so.
>
> All it takes is one person (sometimes with two names) to
> ruin a board.
>
Rancher, I'd just like to see just who Realist has for clients.....last time I checked, there was no confidentiality law. I've witnessed punks getting on here and pretending to be radio "insiders," only to be exposed as teenagers who just want to be rectal openings. Now with the "bobfmsucks" website listing this, I'm sure we'll be exposed to more excrement.
 
Re: Wait a damn minute!

> So now Realist is doing the "my clients" spiel? Isn't that
> "MrMusic's" act?
>
> Given all the "that's right, you tell 'em" posts between
> "Music" and "Realist," doesn't this suggest that they're
> really the same person with two usernames?
>
> I thought so.
>
> All it takes is one person (sometimes with two names) to
> ruin a board.
>

Once again, this board has paranoid thinkers!

I am not Radio Realist. I am indeed an ex-jock who is happy within the field of advertizing. And, yes, I have clients, I have contacts and working relationships with people (both programming and sales) at all of the local radio shops (Infinity, Clear Channel, Renda, etc).

And, yes, my opinions bring into the aspect of "clients". Because THEY are the people I work with on a daily basis! If I were still on the air, I would call these people I work with on a daily basis LISTENERS, as that would be appropriate.

Finally, I do agree with some of what Realist says because he does point out things in what is sometimes your (meaning "you" collectively, not just you Rancher)myopic view of what radio is. I am not ashamed to agree with him. I hope others on this board will get off their high horse and stop and think when he and I point out something, that we have both EXPERIENCED life both at a radio station and in another place of business. I worked on the mic end for years. Now, I'm working in the sales end.

Please stop making generalizations to formulate whatever argument you are supporting or defending. And, as I've told OldiesCat plenty of times, have a general respect for other people's livelihoods, just because they are no longer "on the radio". Some of us are still very, very close to those who run the stations.

Mr. Music
 
Re: Wait a damn minute!

> Once again, this board has paranoid thinkers!
>
> I am not Radio Realist. I am indeed an ex-jock who is happy
> within the field of advertizing. And, yes, I have clients, I
> have contacts and working relationships with people (both
> programming and sales) at all of the local radio shops
> (Infinity, Clear Channel, Renda, etc).
>
> And, yes, my opinions bring into the aspect of "clients".
> Because THEY are the people I work with on a daily basis! If
> I were still on the air, I would call these people I work
> with on a daily basis LISTENERS, as that would be
> appropriate.
I think people were taking Realist to task over what seemed to be very biased statements on why he would advise clients not to advertise with a particular station. If you have data to back up your opinions, that's a whole different story. If you subscribe to Arbitron, and I know of ad firms that DO, that would be your best tool. But just personal opinions either way without data to reinforce that isn't really that smart.


> Finally, I do agree with some of what Realist says because
> he does point out things in what is sometimes your (meaning
> "you" collectively, not just you Rancher)myopic view of what
> radio is. I am not ashamed to agree with him. I hope others
> on this board will get off their high horse and stop and
> think when he and I point out something, that we have both
> EXPERIENCED life both at a radio station and in another
> place of business. I worked on the mic end for years. Now,
> I'm working in the sales end.
I will admit Realist does bring out some good points at times, but sometimes he gets caught up (as others do, too) in posts that reek of sarcasm and name-calling. Words on a computer screen can't convey emotion, sad to say. So if someone makes a snide comment, we may never know if they're joking or not. I have too worked on the "other" side of the mic for a time, and maybe it's time to do that again. Heaven knows the talent part certainly ISN'T where the money is! LOL


> Please stop making generalizations to formulate whatever
> argument you are supporting or defending. And, as I've told
> OldiesCat plenty of times, have a general respect for other
> people's livelihoods, just because they are no longer "on
> the radio". Some of us are still very, very close to those
> who run the stations.
>
> Mr. Music
>
Well, it's just unfortunate that we may never know what some of these posters may really do. I understand most of us need to keep our identities on the QT for various reasons, but that doesn't excuse someone from acting like they know it all because they're there and someone else ISN'T. If you work with radio people, then you have at least some knowledge of the business. Maybe not the politics that go on at a particular station, but at least what's going on in the business as a whole. Besides, how could you advertise on radio without knowing what's going on in radio? I don't think OC and others really understand that.
 
Re: Wait a damn minute!

> I think people were taking Realist to task over what seemed
> to be very biased statements on why he would advise clients
> not to advertise with a particular station. If you have
> data to back up your opinions, that's a whole different
> story. If you subscribe to Arbitron, and I know of ad firms
> that DO, that would be your best tool. But just personal
> opinions either way without data to reinforce that isn't
> really that smart.

Arbitron is not the only resource out there. People who work in radio keep referring to "testing", without once mentioning the name of any testing companies. I also referred to "testing", without mentioning the name of any testing companies. But rest assured, my opinions on the listening habits of people are based on focus group testing, conducted with the same degree of accuracy and precision as the testing done to compile radio station playlists.

Why is it so difficult for those of you who bet the farm on the results of auditorium testing of songs to accept that the same kind of testing principles can be applied to testing how listeners actually pick a radio station? If you accept putting people into a room with a keypad or dial to indicate how much they like a song, why can't you accept having people sit in a mock-up of a car with a button equipped radio and measuring when and why they hit station buttons? Is testing to measure the latter so much different from testing to measure the former? If you accept the validity of how people fill out diaries to measure what station they listen to, then why can't you accept the validity of their answers when they fill out questionaires about what makes them change the radio station?

The companies I have worked for hires qualified psychologists them to create and run these sorts of tests. I assure you that the tests that taught me the things I repeat in here about how people listen to the radio, and what makes them tune out, were designed and conducted with the same level of scientific precision and validity as the tests that tell you which 300 songs to play to death.

How is it "biased" to use test results as proof of one opinion, and not biased to use test results as proof of another opinion?

I'll admit, I haven't paid that much attention to radio lately. Mostly that's because I haven't had any major clients in a long time that would have benefitted from advertising on the radio. Most of my work lately has been with product packaging, POS materials, direct mail, and the internet because those media were most appropriate for my clients. But I still pay attention to radio because radio and television were where I got my start in media.
 
Re: Wait a damn minute!

> > Once again, this board has paranoid thinkers!
> >
> > I am not Radio Realist. I am indeed an ex-jock who is
> happy
> > within the field of advertizing. And, yes, I have clients,
> I
> > have contacts and working relationships with people (both
> > programming and sales) at all of the local radio shops
> > (Infinity, Clear Channel, Renda, etc).
> >
> > And, yes, my opinions bring into the aspect of "clients".
>
> > Because THEY are the people I work with on a daily basis!
> If
> > I were still on the air, I would call these people I work
> > with on a daily basis LISTENERS, as that would be
> > appropriate.
> I think people were taking Realist to task over what seemed
> to be very biased statements on why he would advise clients
> not to advertise with a particular station. If you have
> data to back up your opinions, that's a whole different
> story. If you subscribe to Arbitron, and I know of ad firms
> that DO, that would be your best tool. But just personal
> opinions either way without data to reinforce that isn't
> really that smart.
>
>
> > Finally, I do agree with some of what Realist says because
>
> > he does point out things in what is sometimes your
> (meaning
> > "you" collectively, not just you Rancher)myopic view of
> what
> > radio is. I am not ashamed to agree with him. I hope
> others
> > on this board will get off their high horse and stop and
> > think when he and I point out something, that we have both
>
> > EXPERIENCED life both at a radio station and in another
> > place of business. I worked on the mic end for years.
> Now,
> > I'm working in the sales end.
> I will admit Realist does bring out some good points at
> times, but sometimes he gets caught up (as others do, too)
> in posts that reek of sarcasm and name-calling. Words on a
> computer screen can't convey emotion, sad to say. So if
> someone makes a snide comment, we may never know if they're
> joking or not. I have too worked on the "other" side of the
> mic for a time, and maybe it's time to do that again.
> Heaven knows the talent part certainly ISN'T where the money
> is! LOL
>
>
> > Please stop making generalizations to formulate whatever
> > argument you are supporting or defending. And, as I've
> told
> > OldiesCat plenty of times, have a general respect for
> other
> > people's livelihoods, just because they are no longer "on
> > the radio". Some of us are still very, very close to
> those
> > who run the stations.
> >
> > Mr. Music
> >
> Well, it's just unfortunate that we may never know what some
> of these posters may really do. I understand most of us
> need to keep our identities on the QT for various reasons,
> but that doesn't excuse someone from acting like they know
> it all because they're there and someone else ISN'T. If you
> work with radio people, then you have at least some
> knowledge of the business. Maybe not the politics that go
> on at a particular station, but at least what's going on in
> the business as a whole. Besides, how could you advertise
> on radio without knowing what's going on in radio? I don't
> think OC and others really understand that.
>
Dahn'nought-

Well written. I agree with everything you say. I hope others understand and perhaps will realize that when they post.

Thanks for your insight and wisdom.

Mr. Music
 
Re: Wait a damn minute!

> Arbitron is not the only resource out there. People who work
> in radio keep referring to "testing", without once
> mentioning the name of any testing companies. I also
> referred to "testing", without mentioning the name of any
> testing companies. But rest assured, my opinions on the
> listening habits of people are based on focus group testing,
> conducted with the same degree of accuracy and precision as
> the testing done to compile radio station playlists.
With apology, I didn't know that "testing" made it's way into advertising as well. I know many businesses subscribe to Arbitron to help guide where their ad $s will go. I have to apologize, Realist about previous posts possibly suggesting you'd advise a client not to buy ad time with a radio station based on personal bias alone. I'm sure that having dealt with various radio groups that you could possibly gauge which groups has it going for them and who doesn't. And you usually don't have to be "in the building" to know that.


> Why is it so difficult for those of you who bet the farm on
> the results of auditorium testing of songs to accept that
> the same kind of testing principles can be applied to
> testing how listeners actually pick a radio station?
And what would THAT be? I may be a bit narrow-minded on this, but isn't that what Arbitron's about? And aren't they the only ones who gauge that?


> If you accept putting people into a room with a keypad or dial to
> indicate how much they like a song, why can't you accept
> having people sit in a mock-up of a car with a button
> equipped radio and measuring when and why they hit station
> buttons?
Song testing is done very cheaply. Get a room full of people in an auditorium for several hours. All the station has to do beforehand is put together about a 5-10 second sample of their playlist and/or library. The consultants then will play the collection at the gathering, and the listeners rate their responses in an number of catagories ranging from like to dislike (like a whole lot, a little, etc.). Then the consultants present their findings to the station's PD. Sadly, some PDs rely on this and this alone when there are other methods that can contribute as well. Having jocks document what songs listeners call for is also another contributor. That at least would give listeners a feeling that they're somehow contributing to the station.


> Is testing to measure the latter so much different
> from testing to measure the former? If you accept the
> validity of how people fill out diaries to measure what
> station they listen to, then why can't you accept the
> validity of their answers when they fill out questionaires
> about what makes them change the radio station?
Again, it comes down to cost. Remember, when radio stations hire consultants, the stations will buy into all the snake oil the consultant is willing to sell. If the consultant tells the station the sun rises in the west, well then the PD will watch the sun come over Steubenville tomorrow AM.


> The companies I have worked for hires qualified
> psychologists them to create and run these sorts of tests. I
> assure you that the tests that taught me the things I repeat
> in here about how people listen to the radio, and what makes
> them tune out, were designed and conducted with the same
> level of scientific precision and validity as the tests that
> tell you which 300 songs to play to death.
Well, there was a time when there were "full-service" radio stations, stations that mixed in music with talk and/or info in drive times and such. But then some people complained that there wasn't enough of this and enough of that. So, stations heard Peter cry "wolf" and changed on a whim. That's where we get Jammin' Oldies and Smooth Jazz. Nice niches to run for a few hours a day or perhaps on a weekend, but an entire format devoted to it?


> How is it "biased" to use test results as proof of one
> opinion, and not biased to use test results as proof of
> another opinion?
Not biased in my opinion....as long as you have some evidence to prove your point, you only enhance your theory(ies). The more solid proof, the more the theory becomes fact.


> I'll admit, I haven't paid that much attention to radio
> lately. Mostly that's because I haven't had any major
> clients in a long time that would have benefitted from
> advertising on the radio.
It wouldn't hurt just to keep your ears open. Even though what you hear from radio may be garbage, at least you can throw out the trash. Hopefully bean counters will be replaced by some actual intelligent radio people and radio could rise from the smouldering ashes it finds itself in.


Just 1 more note.....look at the Arbs, and look at the top several stations. Ask yourself what makes those stations stay where they are? Even though radio listenership may have declined, the same stations seem to remain where they are. And why? 8 of the top 10 stations in the Summer '05 12+ are stations that have kept their formats over the last several years. KISS and N/T 104.3 have done extensive promotion for their product through various mediums. But it's the stations that stand by their product and support it with their entire heart & soul that keeps thems going. The more you believe in yourself & your product, the better you chances of success.
 
Re: Wait a damn minute!

> > Arbitron is not the only resource out there. People who
> work
> > in radio keep referring to "testing", without once
> > mentioning the name of any testing companies. I also
> > referred to "testing", without mentioning the name of any
> > testing companies. But rest assured, my opinions on the
> > listening habits of people are based on focus group
> testing,
> > conducted with the same degree of accuracy and precision
> as
> > the testing done to compile radio station playlists.
> With apology, I didn't know that "testing" made it's way
> into advertising as well. I know many businesses subscribe
> to Arbitron to help guide where their ad $s will go. I have
> to apologize, Realist about previous posts possibly
> suggesting you'd advise a client not to buy ad time with a
> radio station based on personal bias alone. I'm sure that
> having dealt with various radio groups that you could
> possibly gauge which groups has it going for them and who
> doesn't. And you usually don't have to be "in the building"
> to know that.

That's why I keep harping on how it is a good thing to know about more than just the radio industry. Those who work in radio and who also know about related industries will fare better than those who know radio only.

And that's the kind of statement in which you can substitute any industry you want to and it will still be valid.

> > Why is it so difficult for those of you who bet the farm
> on
> > the results of auditorium testing of songs to accept that
> > the same kind of testing principles can be applied to
> > testing how listeners actually pick a radio station?
> And what would THAT be? I may be a bit narrow-minded on
> this, but isn't that what Arbitron's about? And aren't they
> the only ones who gauge that?

No, Arbitron has done a great job of selling their brand name for measuring the size of great gobs of listeners, but not for measuring the psychogical reasons WHY people choose the station that they choose.

> > If you accept putting people into a room with a keypad or
> dial to
> > indicate how much they like a song, why can't you accept
> > having people sit in a mock-up of a car with a button
> > equipped radio and measuring when and why they hit station
>
> > buttons?
> Song testing is done very cheaply. Get a room full of
> people in an auditorium for several hours. All the station
> has to do beforehand is put together about a 5-10 second
> sample of their playlist and/or library. The consultants
> then will play the collection at the gathering, and the
> listeners rate their responses in an number of catagories
> ranging from like to dislike (like a whole lot, a little,
> etc.). Then the consultants present their findings to the
> station's PD. Sadly, some PDs rely on this and this alone
> when there are other methods that can contribute as well.
> Having jocks document what songs listeners call for is also
> another contributor. That at least would give listeners a
> feeling that they're somehow contributing to the station.

But you either accept the numbers, or else you have to go with your own personal opinions, based on how well you know your audience, the market, and what kind of intuitive gut feelings you have. Everyone who has ever been successful at anything has to use his own judgement at some point. But, when one does, one also has to listen to fools claim one is only using one's "personal bias".

> > Is testing to measure the latter so much different
> > from testing to measure the former? If you accept the
> > validity of how people fill out diaries to measure what
> > station they listen to, then why can't you accept the
> > validity of their answers when they fill out questionaires
>
> > about what makes them change the radio station?
> Again, it comes down to cost. Remember, when radio stations
> hire consultants, the stations will buy into all the snake
> oil the consultant is willing to sell. If the consultant
> tells the station the sun rises in the west, well then the
> PD will watch the sun come over Steubenville tomorrow AM.

As a marketing consultant, and one who sells his share of snake oil, it still comes down to performance. When I tell a client that he needs to do such-and-such, I usually have testing and research to back me up. But whether I do or not, my fees are based on whether or not I increase their sales. If I am not successful at boosting sales, I don't make much money.

> > The companies I have worked for hires qualified
> > psychologists them to create and run these sorts of tests.
> I
> > assure you that the tests that taught me the things I
> repeat
> > in here about how people listen to the radio, and what
> makes
> > them tune out, were designed and conducted with the same
> > level of scientific precision and validity as the tests
> that
> > tell you which 300 songs to play to death.
> Well, there was a time when there were "full-service" radio
> stations, stations that mixed in music with talk and/or info
> in drive times and such. But then some people complained
> that there wasn't enough of this and enough of that. So,
> stations heard Peter cry "wolf" and changed on a whim.
> That's where we get Jammin' Oldies and Smooth Jazz. Nice
> niches to run for a few hours a day or perhaps on a weekend,
> but an entire format devoted to it?
>
>
> > How is it "biased" to use test results as proof of one
> > opinion, and not biased to use test results as proof of
> > another opinion?
> Not biased in my opinion....as long as you have some
> evidence to prove your point, you only enhance your
> theory(ies). The more solid proof, the more the theory
> becomes fact.

But I keep saying that I have the evidence (which cost quite a bit to obtain, and I'm not gonna share it for free). I keep saying that what I post in here is the result of psychological and market testing. And people like you and Oldiescat and others keep harping on "but you don't currently work in radio".

> > I'll admit, I haven't paid that much attention to radio
> > lately. Mostly that's because I haven't had any major
> > clients in a long time that would have benefitted from
> > advertising on the radio.
> It wouldn't hurt just to keep your ears open. Even though
> what you hear from radio may be garbage, at least you can
> throw out the trash. Hopefully bean counters will be
> replaced by some actual intelligent radio people and radio
> could rise from the smouldering ashes it finds itself in.

I don't see that happening. Those who work in radio who keep their eyes open, and who see the big picture, tend to migrate to other industries with greener pastures. It's a sad situation, but those who cling to job in radio seem to be the ones dedicated to never ever thinking outside the box or attempting any innovations other than rap like Bob or Jack.

> Just 1 more note.....look at the Arbs, and look at the top
> several stations. Ask yourself what makes those stations
> stay where they are? Even though radio listenership may
> have declined, the same stations seem to remain where they
> are. And why? 8 of the top 10 stations in the Summer '05
> 12+ are stations that have kept their formats over the last
> several years. KISS and N/T 104.3 have done extensive
> promotion for their product through various mediums. But
> it's the stations that stand by their product and support it
> with their entire heart & soul that keeps thems going. The
> more you believe in yourself & your product, the better you
> chances of success.

You also have to recognize what your product is. As long as some advertisers still throw money away at raw numbers, Arbitron-based radio station "successes" will sell commercials. But over in my industry, the trend is to move away from just looking at shotgunning a sales message at raw numbers and to instead look more towards rifle-shot advertising to more cost-effectively sell products. As my industry segment changes the way it operates, your industry will have to change or perish. But, those of you who don't pay attention to how my industry changes are going to be left in the dirt.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom