Soon! The coming Talk Radio tsunami...

[davideduardo]

As Big A has said, radio programmers don't as a rule pay any attention to the label on a song. The criteria used in selecting new adds is based on how good the song is, and how it compares to other new songs. A name artist will have an advantage over a little known artist, because we know that is important to the listners. Other than that, it's about the song itself.

Of course, the bigger stations will have callout tracking within a few weeks, and the song will have to show strength or it is gone.

This type of analysis always makes me laugh. And just who decides how good a song is? How can you compare a song to other songs, until it has been played enough times, and people are requesting it and sales are being made? Songs are like commercials: The more you play them, the more response you get. Period. No need for a bunch of radio-pyscho-babble.

Sure the name of the brand is important. But all brands start somewhere whether it is an artist, a car, cereal or toilet paper. When you put a brand (known or not) on the end case, it sells. So, what does the supermarket want to push today? What did they buy a lot of and need to get rid of? Radio is nothing but an advertising machine and people buy what is pushed on them, including the music.

Everyone is number one in something. And this illusion that Agencies and Labels have created that you have to be number 1 in the market is hogwash. Being "number 1" is all relative to the audience you are selling to. Yes, women do most of the buying. Yes women like what is familiar. But it can't really be familiar until she has heard it a few times. So the familiarity is less about specific songs, and more about the relationship the station has created with the woman listening. When the woman listening feels like what the station is going to play for her is "safe", ie within her boundary, it doesn't matter how "popular" the song is.

Most PDs would NOT have played an Indie band named Nirvana, but put them on a label and whoa! Watch out! So TheBigA, are your REALLY paying attention to Indie artists at all? I doubt it. You're only watching what other, "bigger" stations are playing, and they are playing artists that are represented. Well, as Dave Ramsey and Bill O'Reilly found out...pay to be on the BIG stations and eventually you will see enough success that the smaller stations will be clamoring for you. That sums up how the music radio industry works too. And many artists, if they had the money to do so, would do it too. But there are laws against that. So, they go through labels...that provide promotional gifts to stations to give away, to encourage that air play. I mean really..if Sony gave you 100 cd's a week to give away, you're telling me you don't HAVE to play what they are pushing? HA, no you don't HAVE to, but if you don't you will tarnish the relationship and then Sony will no longer feed you.

The Radio industry is not as pure as you want people to think.

 

[davideduardo]

As Big A has said, radio programmers don't as a rule pay any attention to the label on a song. The criteria used in selecting new adds is based on how good the song is, and how it compares to other new songs. A name artist will have an advantage over a little known artist, because we know that is important to the listeners. Other than that, it's about the song itself. Of course, the bigger stations will have callout tracking within a few weeks, and the song will have to show strength or it is gone.

This type of analysis always makes me laugh. And just who decides how good a song is?

The program director of a station determines what music is good for that station. It's one of the skills required for the job.

How can you compare a song to other songs,

That is not what a radio programmer does. They decide on what song(s) if any are appropriate in any particular week to fill the station's needs. The decision is based on "which song is best for my station right now?"

[quote.. until it has been played enough times, and people are requesting it and sales are being made?[/quote]

Once a song has been added, and played enough for it to be familiar, then the song is researched by callout, web-based studies, etc., to see if it is working. If there is no interest or it is negative, it is pulled from play.

Songs are like commercials: The more you play them, the more response you get. Period. No need for a bunch of radio-pyscho-babble.

To an extent, this is true. A PD picks the adds for their station, and then plays them a while and then tests them to see if they are working. But if they are not, they are gone. It's really quite simple.

Sure the name of the brand is important. But all brands start somewhere whether it is an artist, a car, cereal or toilet paper.

Radio does not play bands or categories. It plays individual songs. It's as if every box of corn flakes in a store were different in some significant way; you can tell vaguely that people like corn flakes, but they may like one box more than the next, or not at all.

When you put a brand (known or not) on the end case, it sells. So, what does the supermarket want to push today?

Actually, end aisle displays, facings, shelf talkers, etc., are given based on what incentives (case lot discounts, return policy, etc.) the manufacturer gives. They are a profit center for markets, and given to products with potential that reward the market in some way.

Not an appropriate example.

And products, no matter how much they are promoted, only sell once if they are bad. Same with songs. Expose them, and if there is no further interest, remove them from the "shelf."

What did they buy a lot of and need to get rid of? Radio is nothing but an advertising machine and people buy what is pushed on them, including the music.

Not really. If you want to remove a bad product from the market, advertise it. It may be tried once, but will not be bought again.

Most PDs would NOT have played an Indie band named Nirvana, but put them on a label and whoa! Watch out! So TheBigA, are your REALLY paying attention to Indie artists at all? I doubt it.

Most of us try to play good songs. I've never seen the label being a factor in the decision. A PD's job, particularly today, is too precious to endanger by playing bad songs for wrong reasons.

What everyone is forgetting is that most indie artists are indie artists because the bigger labels do not think they have much potential. That means, basically, that the bands and artists are not as good as needed to make any money from, so they don't sign them.

Why is radio supposed to play crap in the name of "the little guy" if the songs are bad? Occasionally an indie song breaks out, because the larger labels did not recognize the talent of an artist or composer. But not most of the time.

I mean really..if Sony gave you 100 cd's a week to give away, you're telling me you don't HAVE to play what they are pushing? HA, no you don't HAVE to, but if you don't you will tarnish the relationship and then Sony will no longer feed you.

Most of us are not really concerned about label relationships. Record ducks want us to play all their songs, and we only want to play good songs. The ducks quack, "play my record, play my record." Most of the time, we don't.

As the phone message of the music director of a top 3 LA station said a while back... "if you are promoting music, you can hang up now."

 

[JimmyJames]

"What everyone is forgetting is that most indie artists are indie artists because the bigger labels do not think they have much potential."

And with the way things are going for the major labels, I surely would trust their opinions and business models.

 

[TheBigA]

The exact same issues and problems affecting the majors are affecting indies. No one is immune from the current economy. So I wouldn't use their difficulties as an indication of anything. Last time I checked, they're both selling CDs, and the public isn't buying CDs.

 

[adma]

You are suggesting that 96% of people listens to radio for music? 96% of people listen to THE RADIO, not radio for music.

No I'm talking about the 4% who don't listen.

I think the point may not so much that 96% listen, as much as 96% aren't that militantly worked up over the current state of commercial music radio. Essentially, "it is what it is", it (apparently) serves its target demo, if it's your cup of tea, then fine, and if it isn't, then out of sight, out of mind, unless you're in some home/auto/workplace environment where it's absolutely unavoidable (and with technology, it's less and less "unavoidable" than it might have seemed a generation or two ago).

Sort of like Wal-Mart, where, perhaps, only about 4% might be of the militant wouldn't-go-there-under-any-circumstance variety--but that doesn't mean the remaining 96% are absolutely drooling Wal-Mart acolytes, either. It is what it is, and if they go there (assuming they go there at all), they know what they're going for, and it's not for, uh, indie esoterica: they can go elsewhere (on-line not excluded) for that.

Besides, if there's a more sizeable "militant activism" related to the state of commercial radio these days, it relates to the conservative-mouth-breather state of talk radio rather than the inane-commercial-crap state of music radio. And even with regard to that, the fact that--whether one feels it's merited or not--Obama could be elected president and maintain high approval ratings against the grain of what said radio has to offer, proves that maybe its "reach" is overrated. Especially since the Obama-camp tactic has been less about "reacting" to said radio (as might have been the case in past overwrought Democratic efforts), than about strategically ignoring it and letting it blow off its own steam. Essentially, the message is: no sense in being militant anymore, let the buffoons stew in their own buffoonishness--and that comes easier in an age when terrestrial radio carries a "yesterday's media" brand. (And paradoxically, that "yesterdayness" probably leads to *fewer* people being concerned about radio's suckitude these days. It's a little like, once you move away from home, parental idiocy is less of a concern.)

 

[TheBigA]

I think the point may not so much that 96% listen, as much as 96% aren't that militantly worked up over the current state of commercial music radio.

All Arbitron measures is if you listen, or if you don't. Passion, intelligence, or politics are not among the metrics.

I sell numbers. That's all the advertisers care to see. Some of those advertisers happen to be involved in the music business. They too care more about numbers than passion, intelligence, or politics.

The day the advertisers care about the other stuff is the day I start getting it for them. Until then, I just sell the numbers.

 

[cabradio]

All Arbitron measures is if you listen, or if you don't. Passion, intelligence, or politics are not among the metrics.

I sell numbers. That's all the advertisers care to see. Some of those advertisers happen to be involved in the music business. They too care more about numbers than passion, intelligence, or politics.

The day the advertisers care about the other stuff is the day I start getting it for them. Until then, I just sell the numbers.

And "numbers" do not equal "positive ROI" for advertisers. As an advertiser I could care less how many listeners you have. I want people to walk through my door. Just because you have more listeners than the next station does not necessarily mean you can push more people through my door either. And as an advertiser I also realize it is my job to sell to them once you get them in. But really, if you think you're all that because you have more listeners than your competition, you should be ashamed. That is, if you care about your advertisers. You should be focused on the quality of your listener, not just how many you have. Do your listeners respond? As a small business owner, a local direct advertiser, I'd rather advertise on a station with 1000 listeners, with a 10% actionary audience (100 people respond), rather than a station 10,000 listeners with a 1% reactionary audience (100 people respond). The results are the same you say? Yes, but my ROI will be higher on the 1000 listener station. In other words it will be cheaper to advertise on the station with a smaller audience. Obviously a huge factor on the ROI is the quality of the ad, great copy writing and production. The client's offer needs to be strong too.

How does music play into this...as was stated earlier, the niche formats tend to have more loyal audiences because they know they need to support the station. How does this tie into playing more indie music within a specific genre? Primarily to stop being greedy, only seeking to push the already successful through. The more you share (give), the more you get. Radio is acting in limited behaviors by over thinking everything with statistics, ratings, call-outs, research...The spontaneity and creativity that made radio great has been squashed by those "intellects" who want everything over analyzed and processed with a spreadsheet. Why do you suppose labels "miss" talent? Because they are too busy analyzing what kind of an ROI they will get by investing in an artist. Do you think a label would have taken a chance on a Susan Boyle? No, and there are probably hundred of thousands, if not millions of Susan Boyles in communities through out the Country.

Radio shouldn't be about analyzing what's doing well in NYC, LA, Chicago or Dallas. Radio should be about scouting local talent shows and featuring locally grown talent. Helping people become successful, not just playing those that are.

You and David Eduardo, intellect extraordinaire, will probably disagree. And that's okay.

 

[TheBigA]

And "numbers" do not equal "positive ROI" for advertisers. As an advertiser I could care less how many listeners you have.

You're obviously NOT an advertiser, because that's absolutely NOT what they tell me. ALL they care about is numbers.

Radio shouldn't be about analyzing what's doing well in NYC, LA, Chicago or Dallas. Radio should be about scouting local talent shows and featuring locally grown talent. Helping people become successful, not just playing those that are.

It needs to be a national hit. Not a local hit. No one cares about the successful bar band. I've seen lots of them come and go. Meanwhile, Carrie Underwood, who was a college student with no musical experience, won a national TV talent contest, then won a Grammy for Best New Artist, sold 10 million records, and a few weeks ago was named Entertainer of the Year. How did that happen? Not by featuring locally grown talent. She played talent shows and lost. She never won a single talent show in her life. So go ahead and play the local cover bands on your station. That's not what made Carrie Underwood a star.

By the way you keep bringing up Susan Boyle as though that's an indication of something. As of now, she hasn't sold any records, hasn't sold any concerts, or really made any money. She's a contestant on a reality TV show, and the video was picked up by the internet. That's not some local talent show. It's a national one. And even then, the jury is still out on if she can turn her celebrity into an actual career, or if she'll just become a dowdy Paris Hilton.

 

[davideduardo]

And "numbers" do not equal "positive ROI" for advertisers. As an advertiser I could care less how many listeners you have. I want people to walk through my door. Just because you have more listeners than the next station does not necessarily mean you can push more people through my door either. And as an advertiser I also realize it is my job to sell to them once you get them in.

Really, the advertiser has to do a lot more before advertising. Location, convenient hours, transportation, merchandise, pricing vs. the competiton, pricing vs. perceived value, reputation, service, etc., all are part of the success of a campaign.

Radio's job is that of a medium. Get the message out. It's the advertiser's job to presell, have the right message, and to deliver if the customer comes in or calls.

You should be focused on the quality of your listener, not just how many you have. Do your listeners respond? As a small business owner, a local direct advertiser, I'd rather advertise on a station with 1000 listeners, with a 10% actionary audience (100 people respond), rather than a station 10,000 listeners with a 1% reactionary audience (100 people respond).

The thing is that listeners may react depending on the day, week, month, season, etc. If you advertise weed killer in Rochester in October, it ain't gonna' work. And the same, albeit in a more subtle form, is in play for every advertiser or ad.

Aside from not advertising the country concert on the metal station, there is no way of knowing how each listener will react, because that "quality" changes dynamically. Radio can only deliver ears, not attitudes.

The week after I buy a car, there is not a single car ad I will pay attention to. A few months later, same thing... car ads depend on hitting the percent or two of people who are looking at cars now, and all the rest is wasted on uninterested and non-reacting non-consumers.

How does music play into this...as was stated earlier, the niche formats tend to have more loyal audiences because they know they need to support the station.

The PPM is showing that there is no loyalty, only mood driven changes. Even P1 listeners, thought to be sturdy and reliable, are fickle and changing, moving from one favorite to a new one every so often. And the average listener uses 6 or 7 stations, and the TSL to the niche or narrow stations often is shorter, not longer, because the appeal is not broad.

How does this tie into playing more indie music within a specific genre? Primarily to stop being greedy, only seeking to push the already successful through. The more you share (give), the more you get. Radio is acting in limited behaviors by over thinking everything with statistics, ratings, call-outs, research...

Not so. Radio, going back to the ratings of the 30's, was always numbers-driven because ad buyers have to have some metric by which to justify their campaigns. And things like sales of 45's and juke box plays have been replaced by music tests and call out... much better, more focused, but vastly more expensive.

And, of course, "research" just means "talking with the listener."

The spontaneity and creativity that made radio great has been squashed by those "intellects" who want everything over analyzed and processed with a spreadsheet.

Spontaneity and creativity are not thwarted by knowing what the listeners want and don't want. Those artistic qualities are guided by a greater knowledge of the audience, so that a closer connection can be made.

Give a skilled carpenter a hand saw, and he will still do great work. But give him a power saw, and he will do more work, and probably better work, too. Research is just a tool for programmers.

Why do you suppose labels "miss" talent? Because they are too busy analyzing what kind of an ROI they will get by investing in an artist.

They usually don't miss talent. The bulk of the unsigned "talent" is not worth signing, or not ready to sign.

The self produced and indie stuff that I get and have received over the years is 99% embarassing.

Radio shouldn't be about analyzing what's doing well in NYC, LA, Chicago or Dallas. Radio should be about scouting local talent shows and featuring locally grown talent. Helping people become successful, not just playing those that are.

I've done "homegrown" shows and even competitons. Unfortunately, they debut well, and the station image is a bit enhanced, but nobody listens to the shows and the competions prove nothing.

 

[cabradio]

You're obviously NOT an advertiser, because that's absolutely NOT what they tell me. ALL they care about is numbers.

It doesn't matter what I am, or am not. You aren't asking your clients the right questions. Ask them "do you want a lot of people to hear your ad, or do you want a lot of people to walk through your door". Obviously they will say "both" but then ask them to pick one and the truth will come out. Guess which one it will be.

As I said, difference of opinion. No biggie to me.

 

[TheBigA]

You aren't asking your clients the right questions.

Why? Because they don't come to the same conclusion as you?

And you have the nerve to say we should approach what we do with more humility?

 

[cabradio]

You aren't asking your clients the right questions.

Why? Because they don't come to the same conclusion as you?

And you have the nerve to say we should approach what we do with more humility?

As General Manager of a station, I had clients tell me the same thing. And so I would ask them that and their answer would change. It's fact that a client wants customers, not listeners. With better questions you get more truthful answers. Something you learn in life.

 

[TheBigA]

It's fact that a client wants customers, not listeners. With better questions you get more truthful answers. Something you learn in life.

Right. I had a meeting with JWT last fall, and they told me they wanted customers, not listeners. So they did an online campaign instead of working with me. And their client saw a 22% drop in sales for their campaign. That's what you get when you try to focus a campaign too finely. Fewer listeners will translate to fewer customers. Or it did there. They're changing their strategy this year. Try to understand that this isn't my hobby.

 

[cabradio]

It's fact that a client wants customers, not listeners. With better questions you get more truthful answers. Something you learn in life.

Right. I had a meeting with JWT last fall, and they told me they wanted customers, not listeners. So they did an online campaign instead of working with me. And their client saw a 22% drop in sales for their campaign. That's what you get when you try to focus a campaign too finely. Fewer listeners will translate to fewer customers. Or it did there. They're changing their strategy this year. Try to understand that this isn't my hobby.

Um. Try to understand it isn't mine either.

Sorry to burst your bubble...moving to a poorly executed, or misguided online campaign does not mean anything than what it is. Some online campaigns work better than radio, some radio works better than online campaigns. Thanks for playing though. It is rather amusing.

 

[TheBigA]

Some online campaigns work better than radio, some radio works better than online campaigns. Thanks for playing though. It is rather amusing.

It wasn't my decision. You know who JWT is, don't you? They came in with a pre-determined agenda. Not much anyone can do when that happens except watch the results and do a follow-up call.

 

[cabradio]

It wasn't my decision. You know who JWT is, don't you? They came in with a pre-determined agenda. Not much anyone can do when that happens except watch the results and do a follow-up call.

You IMPLIED that because they wanted customers, instead of your listeners, that their online campaign failed. And that they were too focused on getting customers and should have just wanted listeners instead. But in reality, it was just another failed campaign. They could have run a poor campaign on your station and would just as quickly blame you for it failing too (with the old "radio doesn't work" excuse). Your spin isn't as dizzying as you'd like it to be.

 

[Silkie]

I would respectfully offer that TheBigA is actually the one who is right on - at least in my estimation. When a listener has to choose between incompetence, ineptitude and gamesmanship on the one hand or arrogance and an attitude that doesn't care on the other hand you are going to lose listeners. Listeners translate into paying customers somewhere along the line.

I have seen first hand that when you have incompetence, ineptitude and gamesmanship nobody shows up when a station's customers hire the station to promote their businesses, because nobody heard about it. When you have arrogance and an attitude that doesn't care, because it's all about the inside game you lose listeners as well, because people reach a point when they can't be bothered standing by you, so they figure let the games begin between the idiots and asses, who eventually are torn asunder by one another while the listeners move along.

The listeners are usually not the ones who lose in the long run, because people don't have to tolerate a junk effort in the name of saving or making a dime. The results are usually foregone conclusions. No point doing a follow up call. It is what it is. I have always found that if something occurs that is beyond everyone's control, anyone with any class hangs in there and waits to hear it. When it is deliberate, nobody gives a rap, because if the listeners are nothing to them but a dime, or symbolism used to get to the dime, then why should they care one way or another whether you sink or swim? They take their money elsewhere - and that is what a listener is: a dollar sign.

A final word on the matter would be an analogy; when somebody describes a chain saw to you and then demonstrates the chain saw do you turn the chain saw against that person? Seems to me it's better to just let them carve each other into little pieces - figuratively speaking. As a listener who supports the sponsors (the customers) on programming I have enjoyed in the past I prefer when I am heeded - even after an extended time span.

I am not the only one who expects the respect I have earned and deserve. If I am, then I am a rare gem to be held onto and cared about, recognizing that there is a live person on this this side of the speakers.

But that is just my perspective.

 

[cabradio]

I would respectfully offer that TheBigA is actually the one who is right on - at least in my estimation. When a listener has to choose between incompetence, ineptitude and gamesmanship on the one hand or arrogance and an attitude that doesn't care on the other hand you are going to lose listeners. Listeners translate into paying customers somewhere along the line.

An advertiser doesn't NEED radio to get customers. Yes, radio is one of the best mediums..but not compulsory. So from an advertisers perspective, they want customers. Radio has listeners, ears, that can respond to advertising. Newspapers have eyes, and TV has both, and Internet provides something all those can't = immediate interaction, and viral response that is trackable. To disregard or discount the Internet's effectiveness is foolish. Of course one day, based on your web profile, the ads you hear will be specific to what you are interested in or are looking to purchase, much like how banner ads are now geo-targeted, netradio ads will get more specific as the technology becomes available. Something terrestrial radio can't do.

Listeners may translate into paying customers. As David Eduardo stated, other factors come into play. (I've learned he just like to over explain things that are fairly common sense. However I have come to appreciate his in depth explanation, because sometimes people don't understand.)

Again, to be successful in this new era, one needs to be giving in order to receive. This means radio needs to be more in tune with what is going on locally. My opinion is that includes musically.

 

[Silkie]

To disregard or discount the Internet's effectiveness is foolish.

Yes, it sure is.

 

[adma]

I think the point may not so much that 96% listen, as much as 96% aren't that militantly worked up over the current state of commercial music radio.

All Arbitron measures is if you listen, or if you don't. Passion, intelligence, or politics are not among the metrics.

I sell numbers. That's all the advertisers care to see. Some of those advertisers happen to be involved in the music business. They too care more about numbers than passion, intelligence, or politics.

The day the advertisers care about the other stuff is the day I start getting it for them. Until then, I just sell the numbers.

True enough, in its way; and just to emphasize that not all of that 96% is of the disposition to be "advertised to" in the first place--especially in the TiVo and antispam era. Except that they're more passively than actively out of the picture: dead wood, so to speak. And all the more dead-woodish when they choose to not be recorded by Arbitron for whatever reason.

So, best to factor out the dead wood on behalf of "audience efficiency"--and as for those who actively complain about such music radio sucking, they might as well be like lazy bums freeloading off radio managers' welfare. They're not necessary.