VALLEY RADIO NEEDS AN OVERHAUL ASAP!! - Nevermind, I've given up

[davideduardo]

Speaking of devices, I keep seeing how there is proof to back up the habits of radio. And I realize I might be crucified by some here for questioning this, but if there are 4 million people in the valley, and 1300 PPM devices (was told from a source), that means every person with a device reps 3000 people? So that should give you an idea of how fictitious the data is.

That is actually a fairly good sample. If you look at the political polls, you will see smaller samples for the entire country, and those polls are usually within a couple of percent of actual voting. In radio, a couple of percent overall is insignificant to advertisers who use ratings to determine pricing.

If the sample faithfully represents all the stratification variables (that means all the subsets of the population like age groups, gender, ethnicity, income, education, etc.) then at the size of the Phoenix sample it should faithfully, and within a narrow margin of error, represent the audience of the major stations.

Of those 1300 people with devices, there may be only a few of those that know of a smaller station.

Correct. A station with a very niche format or limited coverage will have a very small audience. Whether the station gets a 0.0 or a 0.3 it won't get bought by ad agencies and major clients. The purpose of ratings is to provide a pricing metric for large advertisers; small stations near the cut-off level don't get buys from that kind of client and generally don't buy the ratings.

But that wouldn't mean they have crap ratings just because that small group didn't favor it.

It does not matter if there are 1,300 or 13,000 in the sample. A station that does not reach even a tenth of a percent of listeners is not going to get ad buys.

Also, when the device holders are in the office, or the bus, dentist, whatever...they are forced to reflect what they wouldn't normally choose.

That does not matter. Advertisers want to know how many people hear their ads, not who chose the station. Again, ratings are bought to give advertisers a metric.

That obviously explains why stations like KEZ or Mix always win. Does not mean they have the best content, it just happens to be the safe choice of bosses.

Keep in mind that 50% of a station's listeners (cume) represent upwards of 90% of the time spent listening to a station. So all those people whose meters "hear" a station for a few minutes in a week won't contribute very much, if anything, to the listening level of a station.

And if people hear particular stations at work, they hear the ads. That is what advertisers want to know.

Do keep in mind that most "at work" listening is not in white-collar offices. It's in the delivery truck, on the loading dock, in the factory or auto repair shop... as likely to be a hip hop or country station as Mix.

 

[b-turner]

One point: If the sampling is 13 or 130,000 it doesn't matter. Radio has no control over the numbers. The advertising agencies that place the advertising on stations make those choices based on the results of the ratings. The accuracy may or may not be questionable. The issue is the ratings are what gets used to make advertising buys. Radio can't change that, only the advertising agencies can. The fact they accept the ratings, inferior or not in accuracy doesn't really matter because they use these ratings to justify their decisions. As long as that happens, the process will continue.

 

[2Son]

Geez Louise...this thread has gotten traction.

In any case, all of this talk about advertisers makes me wonder how intelligent companies are about buying ad time based upon hypotheticals. So here's another question: How do radio ad sales reps approach these advertisers and convincing them to buy?

 

[2Son]

I recall much the same, making it to Houston in 1993 but having visited for several years prior. By then KKBQ was country as 93-Q Country.

As for the dance shows I'm sure they knew what was being played in the clubs and how frequently the club DJ was asked to play a song. I would say there was less data available than today. Then when you had people like John Lander which meant you could take a couple of calculated risks without hurting yourself. KRBE was no slouch either. I actually think there was more of a 'coolness' factor to doing such things then versus now.

Back in those days we seemed more concerned with sweeping the quarter hour with a recurrent or a hot and trying to tease listeners to come back in hopes you might get the listener twice for about 5 minutes in the same quarter hour. You got credit for a listener that tuned in for 5 minutes, so if they tuned away, you wanted a good reason for them to come back quickly so you could get credit for two listeners, not one. That's why new or untested songs, commercials and news were relegated to the middle 5 minutes of each quarter hour (ie: a listener from :40 to :50 after the hour is 5 minutes in two different quarter hours, thus, 10 minutes = a 30 minute listener on paper). As I recall stations had maybe a feature in some shifts to introduce a new song and encourage listener comments. The first thing out of your mouth then was usually station, your name and time, the way a listener figured out what they were listening to.

I love airchecks too. One really strange thing I encountered. It was 1969 and my family went to visit relatives in Nashville. I was listening to WKDA, then a top 40 leader. I always listened intently to out of town stations and in fact everything on the dial for that matter. I'd even write down what they played, etc. since I was passionate about radio and as a kid I had a part 15 in the garage. I'd try to imitate from the notes I made to get a 'feel' for the station. A few years back I found an old WKDA aircheck online. After a few minutes it dawned on me that it was an aircheck from the very time I was listening to WKDA in 1969. It was an almost eerie thing but pretty cool as well. I even think it is strange I had such a clear memory of that night.

By the way, a LPFM in Cypress is running a wide mix of music that is partly influenced by the era. I understand the guy in charge of the music was a club DJ at the time. If I am remembering correctly he runs a Club 6400 live broadcast (present day featuring a jock from back in the day). It's KCYB, Radio Cypress, 103.5.

I used to collect a ton of airchecks when I was younger. I guess many of them got lost along the way over the years. I've listened to airchecks before and have sworn that I heard them live as well. You mentioned that you think there was more of a 'coolness' factor to doing such things then versus now (taking risks). What kind of risks do you think would be worth taking now?

 

[TheBigA]

In any case, all of this talk about advertisers makes me wonder how intelligent companies are about buying ad time based upon hypotheticals. So here's another question: How do radio ad sales reps approach these advertisers and convincing them to buy?

There are no hypotheticals. It's all done with numbers and facts. Otherwise, you're right, the companies won't spend money. They need to see tangible evidence that their money will lead to a sale. If they don't, they don't buy again. How do they approach advertisers? With very clear and specific proposals about how they can help the advertiser get sales. Every presentation is custom designed for the specific client.

 

[2Son]

There are no hypotheticals. It's all done with numbers and facts. Otherwise, you're right, the companies won't spend money. They need to see tangible evidence that their money will lead to a sale. If they don't, they don't buy again. How do they approach advertisers? With very clear and specific proposals about how they can help the advertiser get sales. Every presentation is custom designed for the specific client.

I guess that is where I am confused. Aren't numbers hypothetical if you can't absolutely prove how many actual listeners there are? Also, how can you prove to an advertiser that the money they spend with lead to a sale? How do you know listeners are listening to commercials? It's all presumptive, correct?

 

[landtuna]

You can take a horse to water (so the old saying goes). A modern version:

You can air your ad one thousand times but you can't make the listener.....listen (or buy your product).

 

[landtuna]

I guess that is where I am confused. Aren't numbers hypothetical if you can't absolutely prove how many actual listeners there are? Also, how can you prove to an advertiser that the money they spend with lead to a sale? How do you know listeners are listening to commercials? It's all presumptive, correct?

You cannot prove an ad will lead to a specific sale but you can prove, after the fact, that an ad campaign was successful (or not) in total sales. And you could use past ad campaigns as proof that a type of ad works to convince an advertiser to buy.

And remember, it isn't total number of listeners that is important. It is total listeners within the target group that is.

See? I'm leaning David.

 

[2Son]

You cannot prove an ad will lead to a specific sale but you can prove, after the fact, that an ad campaign was successful (or not) in total sales. And you could use past ad campaigns as proof that a type of ad works to convince an advertiser to buy.

And remember, it isn't total number of listeners that is important. It is total listeners within the target group that is.

See? I'm leaning David.

OK, I'll play. So how can you prove that the radio advertisement is actually what triggered those sales and not some other form of advertisement? What if an organization advertises on multiple stations? How will they know which one yields more sales? I would imagine that organizations nowadays would be wise to do customer followups via surveys to determine how they heard about the company. What if a company's products are targeted towards multiple target groups? I'm just trying to get a better grasp of how this industry works.

 

[davideduardo]

I guess that is where I am confused. Aren't numbers hypothetical if you can't absolutely prove how many actual listeners there are? Also, how can you prove to an advertiser that the money they spend with lead to a sale? How do you know listeners are listening to commercials? It's all presumptive, correct?

The ratings numbers are not hypothetical to advertisers and ad agencies. They are the absolute bais for rate setting and determining how much they will pay each station. Of course they know that audience ratings are "estimates" based on a sample, but they also know that the data is "close enough" to be usable for its purpose.

Radio is a messenger. The act of selling depends on much more than the way a message is delivered. The ad itself is what sells.

Advertisers are not naive. They know that some people will not hear ads. They know that some will not be interested. This is just like TV when we know that some will be skipping ads with a DVR, some will be taking a bathroom break, others will be getting another beer from the kitchen.

And there is not way of knowing which medium in a multi-media campaign or which station in a multi-station campaign resulted in sales. In fact, many advertisers use several different media because they feel that the combination of, for example, radio, TV and Internet works better than just one medium alone.

 

[indieradioguy]

Do keep in mind that most "at work" listening is not in white-collar offices. It's in the delivery truck, on the loading dock, in the factory or auto repair shop... as likely to be a hip hop or country station as Mix.

Not true. At nearly every "white-collar" office I have been at, the front desk (security) is listening to 92.3 or 550. Every one at their desks and in their cubicles are listening to playlists from the Coachella music festival -- i.e., predominantly indie-label (derided by some as "obscure" despite headlining big-ticket, internationally-known music festivals like Coachella) that simply AREN'T played anywhere on commercial terrestrial radio in this town. So, if the only at-work stations people openly listen to are "soccer mom/parenting lifestyle central" and the only legit "talk radio" left -- and not music format -- that should tell you something. I mean, heck, KDKB still plays so much 80's and 90's it sounds like it's run by KOOL interns -- if I wanted to hear 80's/90's, I'd listen to KOOL. And quite often do, as a matter of fact, over KDKB.

 

[davideduardo]

You cannot prove an ad will lead to a specific sale but you can prove, after the fact, that an ad campaign was successful (or not) in total sales. And you could use past ad campaigns as proof that a type of ad works to convince an advertiser to buy.

And remember, it isn't total number of listeners that is important. It is total listeners within the target group that is.

See? I'm leaning David.

Excellent!

Yep, it is way beyond radio's abilities to single-handedly make a sale. The copy and the sales points are the big determiners... things like price, location, features vs. competitors and so on have to all work once the message is delivered to a consumer.

 

[b-turner]

Land Tuna kinda has it. The thing I have told advertisers: all advertising is a gamble, we take our best shot with available information and our collective knowledge to create a successful campaign and it almost always turns out well. With that said, if I run an ad for a car dealer knocking $10,000 off the sticker price on every vehicle on the lot this Saturday are you buying a new car from this dealer on Saturday? If not, did the advertising not work? Or were you simply not in the market for a new car this Saturday? Successful advertising is not just today or tomorrow but way down the road as well, such as when you are in the market for a new car. I knew one salesperson who'd tell a client that radio worked but the client's message was wrong. To prove it he'd offer to run one spot saying the next 5 people that showed up at the store would get a $100 bill just for asking for it. If 5 people showed up, the deal was the client had to pay $500 plus the spot rate for the ad. He got no takers, ever.

'Coolness factor' back in the day, to answer 2Son was a station's ability to beat the other stations to the punch on new music. Literally there was almost a significant social status for a person who introduced peers to new groups and songs back then. We were playing Boston and Heart a couple of months prior to anyone else. One listener I knew personally thanked me saying introducing More Than a Feeling and then Heart to her friends made her much more 'cool' to her friends. Silly in many respects, but it was something that mattered back then. We were far from a perfect track record...about 60-70%, and we did so sparingly, but we really took every option we could to be first on music including begging record reps for pre-release pressings.

What might be 'cool' today would be much more difficult. Music was not as specialized back then. You really didn't have a bunch of variations on a base format so stations tried to have a calling card to distinguish them. For our station it was being first on new music. I'd say some of that coolness factor exists on AAA stations where listeners feel more like they are ahead of the curve on music trends.

 

[TheBigA]

Also, how can you prove to an advertiser that the money they spend with lead to a sale? How do you know listeners are listening to commercials? It's all presumptive, correct?

There are two sides of the sale. The pre-sale meeting when the pitch is made, and the follow-up meeting to assess the success of the campaign.

The campaign is designed to have certain results that can be quantified. It's all very scientific and very statistical.

And in my world, we take into account on-air and online and social media in our presentation. So it's a lot more than :30 spots. It's an integrated campaign.

I can't say everyone does it that way. I just know my way, and my way is very convincing.

 

[landtuna]

OK, I'll play. So how can you prove that the radio advertisement is actually what triggered those sales and not some other form of advertisement? What if an organization advertises on multiple stations? How will they know which one yields more sales? I would imagine that organizations nowadays would be wise to do customer followups via surveys to determine how they heard about the company. What if a company's products are targeted towards multiple target groups? I'm just trying to get a better grasp of how this industry works.

Given the variables involved I am not sure whether you could PROVE anything unless you were running only one ad campaign at a time. If you advertise on multiple venues you would have to have some means of verifying the customer's avenue (think about all the times you've been asked "how did you find us?" when in first contact with a company). It's a bit like the old diary though and depends upon the customer to remember and check off the correct avenue.

Another way companies measure sales is to "data mine". This means they (or a contracted company) collect many bits of information about all potential customers then compare actual sales against the database. They now know who is buying what product and perhaps what avenue they used to buy. That is one reason data mining is so pervasive today. Small businesses generally know their customers. Big ones, especially those selling through distributors, may not. This is one way they have of trying to identify their customers and the most effective methods of advertising to them.

Did you once click on an ad online only to find your email box or browser full of ads related to that click? They gotcha! Even with those electronic means of potential customer identification I still get far more advertising in the snail mail than online (yes, I use an ad-blocker) and I very rarely respond to online ads of any kind. I also use a "throwaway" email account so that any pestering coming from that advertiser just goes into the bit bucket since 'unsubscribe' never seems to work.

 

[TheBigA]

Given the variables involved I am not sure whether you could PROVE anything unless you were running only one ad campaign at a time.

Most advertisers aren't idiots. They usually have outside help from agencies or experts who ensure they're getting what they paid for, and the results can be documented.

 

[thepumpin1]

Actually sirius has more than one Top 40 station. I should know, I have Sirius. I understand the competition thing. But what I am saying is, there are only so many listeners in the market for that format. You really only need two CHR's, NOT FOUR. All of those stations playing the exact same thing aren't going to make huge profits, a couple of them are going to suffer financially. If your company truly wanted to make money, you look for a format hole that ISN'T being served. Comparing that to fast food chains really isn't a fair comparison. You have to physically get to that business to support it, whereas with radio you don't.

 

[gr8oldies]

If there ever becomes a big enough niche in sales-friendly demographics for "all-Coachella all the time" someone will do it. No one is going to blow up an existing station to lose money on that format.

 

[thepumpin1]

There is a big enough pie for two CHRs and two Hot AC stations. In Hot AC, KMXP is the leader, and is the 4th or 5th highest biller in a 62 station market. Hot uses two frequencies to cover two ends of the market (SE and NW, but misses everything from downtown to Peoria with a useful indoor signal). Hot bills less because it has deficient coverage.

But the point is that there are only two CHRs and two Hot AC stations. They are different formats and have different demos.



Only if there is a hole capable of getting over a 2 share 12+ where the 18-54 part is strong in some area.



As mentioned, the 65 dbu signals of the two do not even overlap. They each cover a part of the market, and even combined miss a good piece of it.



With Urban AC (with one odd exception) being essentially an African-American only format, there is not enough population to sustain it. The market is 5.4% Black and does not apparently qualify of Nielsen DST, so the numbers would be wobbly and probably even lower due to that issue.



Because they each make big, big money. Both are in the top 7 billing stations, and both have coexisted for years with big success.

So what about the African-Americans who live in the valley who want to hear newer R&B and not just Hip-hop? Where does that leave them? They are consumers as well, don't you think they should have a station that caters as least partially to them? Not saying that is all African-Americans (like myself) listen to. I do like other forms of music. But David, I feel as if you are dismissing them as a population in the valley. I realize PHX isn't Atlanta, Dallas, or Chicago, but I do think radio corporations are overlooking/underestimating our buying power in the valley. Why can't the valley have a Smooth AC station (with a slight Urban lean) that caters to blacks as well as the mainstream listening audience? Like 94.7, the Wave in Los Angeles. I think it could work and would make decent money. You just have to have the commitment behind the format.

 

[TheBigA]

All of those stations playing the exact same thing aren't going to make huge profits, a couple of them are going to suffer financially. If your company truly wanted to make money, you look for a format hole that ISN'T being served.

Those four stations aren't doing that format to lose money. They know their business better than you. If you're right, they'll change to something else. But the goal won't be to find a format hole. The goal will be to find an audience they can sell. Very different goal.

Format holes aren't the way to make money. In New York City, a station had a format hole with alternative. They would be the only station in the rock capital of the world. They lost money and ended up selling the station, and it's now the 4th sports-talk station in NYC. So sometimes, having multiple stations in the same format will make more money than serving a format hole. If you know the financials on those four stations in Phoenix, let me know. I'm sure someone here does.