followthemedia.com - a knowledge base for media professionals
The Numbers Insight
AGENDA

All Things Digital
This digital environment

Big Business
Media companies and their world

Brands
Brands and branding, modern and post

The Commonweal
Media associations and institutes

Conflict Zones
Media making a difference

Fit To Print
The Printed Word and the Publishing World

Insight
Bright thoughts, Big ideas

Lingua Franca
Culture and language

Media Rules and Rulers
Media politics

The Numbers
Watching, listening and reading

The Public Service
Public Service Broadcasting

Show Business
Entertainment and entertainers

Sports and Media
Rights, cameras and action

Spots and Space
The Advertising Business

Write On
Journalism with a big J

Send ftm Your News!!
news@followthemedia.com

Research shows, research sells

Reading through reviews of recent European radio conferences it is striking how thinking small makes broadcasters happy.

One consultant or station manager after another exclaims the pure truth of success through reaching highly defined (read:tiny) audiences. One part of this definition is demographics, age and gender. Another is “interest,” which usually means music preference. Having a 30 share among 13 to 18 year old girls is certainly better than a two share in the broad audience. Better still is showing “growth.” Better, of course, means there is a good story to tell ad buyers.

Almost always these proclamations come from commercial sector broadcasters. Their public sector counterparts, scant few attend these conferences, appear completely bemused by it all. Most all broadcasters look seriously at every audience survey. Many conduct or buy audience audits to help figure out the mysterious listener and attract them to one channel or another.

Being number 1 means never having to explain demographics.

If attracting listeners was once easier, those days are long past. The grand media supermarket, with its ever-expanding shelf-space, offers every color, shape and style. Sometimes this creates its’ own demand as the listener – call them now the fragmented audience – wanders the aisles, pleased with such variety, not sure what it all means but willing to pick out the next bright shiny object. Advertising people like bright shiny objects: a concept they created.

Nobody seems to opt out of this media shopping experience. With so much of it – and it doesn’t seem to cost much – why not pick up a green one, or one with a pointy top? After all, listeners aren’t forced to use any of them.

So we’ve become both good at and accustomed to creating these bright shiny radio objects. It’s no surprise that consultants and programmers – armed with comprehensive and secret research - rise and fall by their ability to brighten the color or sharpen the shape. Packaging causes products to jump off those supermarket shelves. Once or twice.

Managers with a sharp eye on the weekly sales report like having a new story to tell the ad people. Great managers know that being number one means never having to explain demographics.

All of this brings me to the story about a DJ I worked with in my days as a corporate programming guy. For a chronological perspective, it took place when Reis and Trout’s book Positioning took the market and media world by storm. Reading the stories from the recent radio conferences I wince when the term “positioning” is still used since even the ad world moved on to brighter concepts 20 years ago.

But in the days when “positioning” was new and media shelf-space was much smaller DJs and PDs universally hated the idea of actually asking listeners what they liked or wanted. This was, of course, because DJs and PDs hung out in bars and “knew” what 17 people liked.  Managers never questioned their wide-ranging knowledge so long as the numbers were up or going up. When that situation changed, they called me. The DJs and PDs hated seeing me come through the door, armed as I was with the dreaded RESEARCH.

Audience research at that moment was great at connecting the station with its listeners, first to better picture the listeners, then to better understand what they liked and didn’t like. Really good research would show competitive “positions” of stations within a market. Really bad research was limited to asking people questions they didn’t understand or care about. It turned out that above all the listeners and the radio people rarely spoke the same language.  

Explaining all of this to the DJs, PDs and managers led either to a brilliant break-through (good) or a fist-fight (bad). At one not so pleasant presentation one DJ – star talent actually – listened quietly through all the numbers and findings, taking it all in. It was clear that his “act” wasn’t playing well with the stations’ audience and, though I’d never be so insensitive as to say so, they thought he was “stupid.”

He rose, fuming as the meeting drew to a close, pointed at the station’s manager and said “You know, research shows, research sells.” He then got in his car and drove off, leaving town.

When I hear the justifications for flashy, short-term format radio today, I am reminded that what he said was, and still is, true.

 


copyright ©2004 ftm publishing, unless otherwise noted Contact UsSponsor ftm