If there's one thing I can't stand about NPR's overall presentation it's the sense I perceive that they think, "we're smarter than you are." Thank you for confirming my suspicion by actually saying it.
-
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
Talk Radio Scoreboard for Major Markets: October 2014
- Thread starter Gregg.
- Start date
If there's one thing I can't stand about NPR's overall presentation it's the sense I perceive that they think, "we're smarter than you are." Thank you for confirming my suspicion by actually saying it.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
They don't say it. I didn't say it either. But people who listen to public radio news/talk are smarter than people who listen to right-wing talk.
Besides, all broadcasters think they are smarter than their listeners. How else do you account for all those don't be stupid reminders?
Really, Fred? People who listen to endless repeats of talk programs whose hosts retired two years ago? People who guffaw over the same tired Minnesota schtick week after week for decades? People who have to actually hear the sound of a nail being hammered to understand the concept, "Joe builds houses?" People who think that gawd-awful weekly news quiz is actually interesting, entertaining, humorous, or whatever? These folks are Mensa material?
OK, I'm generalizing ... and you are too. There's good and bad on both sides. But I can't imagine having such a lofty opinion of myself!
Last edited:
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Fair enough, we are generalizing. But the examples you cite are weekend entertainment shows. Talk about what airs on public radio news/talk stations during peak listening hours - weekdays, 5am to 7pm. The only serious and in-depth news coverage left in radio. And probing talk show interviews with often expert guests. Public radio's news audience, according to published surveys, is almost equally divided between self-reported liberals and conservatives. And both sometimes take issue with public radio's news reporting. But public radio has substance - things to think about. Right-wing talk is nothing but ideology and dogma - clearly targeting those who don't want to think. Most telling of all, regular public radio listeners take issue with and challenge what they hear on public radio. Dittoheads don't even question Rush (hence the name "dittohead").
No, Bloomberg does plenty of in-depth news coverage but without the silliness, the "attitude" and the decidedly left-wing slant.
Surveys are always correct except when they're not.
Again, you have to be selective. Maybe not all public radio listeners are ecstatic about the weekend fluff, just as not all conservatives love Rush. When you say, "nothing but," you're painting hosts like John Gambling, Jerry Doyle, Curtis & Kuby, John & Ken and Mike Gallagher (in recent years) with a very broad brush.
I don't understand your anger toward commercial radio. NPR listeners are supposed to be mellow, understanding, tolerant and inclusive! I don't "hate" NPR -- I simply don't listen to much of it. Keeps my blood pressure in check. ;-)
A
Avid Listener
Guest
To all those who feel that they have to pedantically nit-pick every beside the point aside to death in order to prove that they are smarter than the room, get over yourselves.
The original point that you know-it-alls missed, ignored, or shoved into the background is that when a corporation is deciding what media to use for their overall marketing message, including which radio stations to use and which radio stations to ignore, if too much of the audience that they need to reach has abandoned commercial radio for public radio, then they won't buy as much advertising on commercial radio. Blathering over how agencies get compensated is useless, beside-the-point trivia. What does matter is whether or not commercial talk radio stations are holding their audience that is desirable to certain advertisers, or if they are losing that audience to public broadcasting competition. To that end, comparing the ratings of non-commercial stations with commercial stations is a pertinent and germane issue for consideration.
The most blatant example of idiots who don't want to think are those who make broad, sweeping statements like the one above.
The original point that you know-it-alls missed, ignored, or shoved into the background is that when a corporation is deciding what media to use for their overall marketing message, including which radio stations to use and which radio stations to ignore, if too much of the audience that they need to reach has abandoned commercial radio for public radio, then they won't buy as much advertising on commercial radio. Blathering over how agencies get compensated is useless, beside-the-point trivia. What does matter is whether or not commercial talk radio stations are holding their audience that is desirable to certain advertisers, or if they are losing that audience to public broadcasting competition. To that end, comparing the ratings of non-commercial stations with commercial stations is a pertinent and germane issue for consideration.
The most blatant example of idiots who don't want to think are those who make broad, sweeping statements like the one above.
Last edited:
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Gee, all these stereotypes about how public radio listeners are supposed to be. And what it airs. Do you/have you even listened? I doubt it. The tip-off: A general dismissal of public radio (usually mislabeled as "NPR") for liberal bias without any specifics. When actual public radio listeners see "bias," they get very specific. If you don't think so, check out the comments on the NPR ombudsman's page. If you want to talk about public radio's "liberal bias:" (1) Don't say "NPR" when you mean WNYC (i.e., Brian Lehrer, Leonard Lopate, etc), PRI (i.e., The Takeaway, The World, etc.) or APM (i.e., Marketplace, etc). and (2) And listen and find something you considered biased and report it.
Dittoheads don't feel the need to listen to public radio ("NPR) to complain about it. Rush has told them it's bad, so why bother to listen and decide for themselves.
When hosts are so much alike, one does not need a broad brush to cover them. Maybe you haven't listened to Curtis and Kuby; only the subway vigilante does right-wing schtick. Mike Gallagher is as nasty and incendiary and Rush, Beck or any of them.
Bloomberg does business news. If y'all want to limit the definition of talk radio to right-wing, political call-in shows, you can't turn around and compare Bloomberg to general news programs like Morning Edition or All Things Considered - or even Newsradio 880 and 1010 WINS. Besides, Bloomberg is only available on the air in three markets.
When any content is geared to smart people, dummies hate it.
Last edited:
Ah, this is a not-so-clever way of dismissing your inability to name major companies with "Marketing Communications Departments" and to address the error of your understanding of the media buying process, particularly in the area of buying services (and programatic buys, which I did not even mention but which is relevant today).
The fact is that commercial radio has considerably greater reach than non-commercial radio, and non-coms are not perceived as part of the campaign-level advertising of brands. If radio becomes an inefficient medium, it will simply be dropped as part of marketing plans.
Because underwriting and pseudoadvertisements on public stations requires a different message and different "creative" it is generally handled at a different level as part of a corporate image rather than as advertising.
You were the one who challenged the board with your statements that agencies placed such advertising. You obfuscated when it was mentioned that there was "no payback" for agencies to do such work as there is no commission. Now you try to change the subject when confronted with things like buying services, separate creative and such.
You painted yourself into a corner and you can't get out by changing the subject.
The Nielsen format descriptors are generally not what appears in the online ratings summaries. The keepers of each website that publishes such data insert their own format names or descriptors as apparently they do not receive the Nielsen data with the format names.
In the case of the stations I work with, no website even gets 50% of the format names the same as the ones registered in the SIP with Nielsen. But that does not mean that the website descriptors are wrong... as they all generally mean the same thing unless extreme nitpicking is the rule of the day.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
A good advertising agency sells its total expertise to its clients on how to best advertise and market their products. The really good ones are engaged in all aspects of advertising and marketing, down to packaging design and point-of-purchase materials. They engage in the decision making process for everything. Now, when it comes down to details of implementation of the overall master plan, different subdivisions handle different aspects. Ad agencies and clients work together to farm some work out to various and sundry other subcontractors. That doesn't change the fact that the ad agency and client work together to come up with a total master plan for advertising and marketing their products and services.
I spent enough time working in the Marketing Communications Department of a major corporation to have a good understanding of how the process can work.
I spent enough time working in the Marketing Communications Department of a major corporation to have a good understanding of how the process can work.
Besides the fact that you are describing what sounds like a single agency-client relationship that may or may not be typical, you still have not named a single company with that "Marketing Communications Department" (I asked for just 10 out of the Fortune 500) making me think that your experience is eminently atypical.
You yourself say "how the process can work" (emphasis mine). That doesn't mean that it does work that way.
All this explains your false assumptions about how non-commercial radio underwriting is done in the broad picture. As a number of people with experience in the non-com world have explained, this is more commonly handled via corporate sponsored non-profits or by the PR department or at a higher level as part of overall "community support" activities.
This post is filled with so much hypocrisy, it's stunning.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Not every company uses the formal name "Marketing Communications Department" to identify the department that is responsible for communications related to marketing. I could just as easily ask you to name companies that had no person or group within in the company responsible for communications that pertain to marketing.
I would rephrase: "hypocrisy and inaccuracy".
Fred's post that got a thread about Orlando, FL, talk radio deleted indicated that there were so many seniors in Orlando that an approach like NJ 101.5 would never work because the demos were so old.
The fact is that the median age of the Trenton MSA and the Orlando MSA are within months of being the same and are, coincidentally, within one year of being the same as the median age of the entire nation.
The Orlando station on average has a younger median age than NJ 101.5.
So none of the facts there check out.
Certain Bloomberg programing is available on other stations. My market has a Business station, that carries some of it.
Glad the Gregg's monthly post has generated such discussion.
Of course you can't imagine having such a high opinion of yourself, most people couldn't imagine that they are as great as Fred thinks he is.
When one's perception of onesself is such a disconnect from reality,it's entertaining, in a can't stop watching the train wreck kind of way.
NPR Listeners are neither more intelligent, richer or smarter than the radio audience at large. They like what they like, just as other radio listeners do.
Of course you can't imagine having such a high opinion of yourself, most people couldn't imagine that they are as great as Fred thinks he is.
When one's perception of onesself is such a disconnect from reality,it's entertaining, in a can't stop watching the train wreck kind of way.
NPR Listeners are neither more intelligent, richer or smarter than the radio audience at large. They like what they like, just as other radio listeners do.
That doesn't make people who listen to other formats "dumb", though. Which was the point.
I didn't say anyone is "dumb." The point was that NPR audiences ARE richer and better educated. It's not a black & white thing.
- Status