Eric F. Richards wrote:
...so I spent some time here arguing with a rock, er, an, um, "radio
consultant," who is convinced that by the flawed methodology used by
his clients and the ratings service that all radio listening is local,
and he uses those same flawed methodologies to show that his stations
are now number 1.

The phrase that is important here is "flawed methodology."

I was listing to American Public Media's "Marketplace" last Friday and
they had a piece on AmEx's new "clear" AmEx, that they tested in
Boston (and are advertising in Boston only, but is available anywhere)
using a "survey," with questions like:

o Would you like more clarity in your finances?

o What is a bigger source of stress in your life?
a) personal relationships b) money and finance

They found the survey laughable. So they went out and asked the exact
same survey questions with one mo "Would you want to get a credit
card that would help clear up your finances?" People, of course,
said, no, the last thing they need is another credit card.

AmEx, of course, said that was the wrong question to ask.


...and so it goes with radio. As long as the methodology is skewed to
deliver the wanted results, it is as meaningless as AmEx's absurd
"market research."

So they will go on, with IBOC and so-called "HD" radio with all its
artifacts and dropouts, to the detriment of people who actually
listen.



Yes, they will. Why? Two reasons....one is that Powell's FCC
mandated that any future modulation schemes for broadcast must be
digital. But the other is that there's believed to be money in it.

And, again, in the US Radio is ALWAYS about the money.

It may surprise you to know that I agree with you about a lot of
research. Most political polls are constructed to produce a desired
result in precisely the same way as the survey you describe. And I've
been involved with stations that conducted surveys that asked highly
constructed questions that gave the GM precisely the answer he wanted.
While some rather extensive naive listening, produced dramatically
different results. Care to guess how long those GM's last?

But the issue, and this is true of most marketing, but especially
Broadcast, is a matter of cost effectiveness. Why do more work when less
will produce the same profit?

Simple example. When Wapner was on The People's Court, and the
program popularity was at it's zenith, the syndicator announced that
production of new programs would cease, and that all future programs
distributed would be reruns. You should have heard the screaming in my
neighborhood when THAT one went public. It got picked up by the local
broadcasting columnists in the papers and some questions got asked. The
matter was explained by the syndicators: They had enough shows in the
can to keep the program running for several more years. Why spend the
money to produce more shows, when the shows already on the shelf would
produce the same revenue/profit? Of course there were those like you
and me who said things like "To serve the fans?"

Truth is that the syndicator didn't care. He wasn't in the caring
business. He was in the business to make money for himself, his company
and his stockholders. Cutting expenses to maximize profits is only smart
business. And the show, like any show on TV would eventually burn out,
anyway. Any run of more than 4 years is profitable. Anything more than
that is gravy, but gravy with diminishing returns over time, as
distribution costs begin to become a significant fraction of revenue
when the program goes into decline.

Cost/Benefits, Eric. It's all about cost/benefits. And when there can
be revenue generated, without costly methodology, the simpler
methodology will win every time.

It's not about monster signals, anymore. And beyond the 40's it never
really was. There was a certain cache in having a monster signal, but
that was more to dispirit the competition's staff, and do a little chest
puffing. But as far as a practical business strategy...monster signals
beyond the local contours were a waste of energy. No matter who was
listening. Because there was no cost effective (and the key phrase is
"Cost Effective") way of measuring them and making them meaningful to
the sales department. In fact, I've worked for stations that voluntarily
reduced power and reshaped their directional array because the extra
reach was a waste of power. The pennies saved on electricity were more
important and more visible on the books than the extra listeners beyond
the fringe.

The truth is, that the image of public service, huge reach and super
service to the wider area presented by stations in the 60's and 70's
like WLS, WABC, CKLW, KAAY, KNX, WLW and others were more show biz than
substance. In fact, in the late 70's and early 80's when WLS was
snapping up teenagers in ST Louis, it could barely crack the top 10 in
Chicago where it's revenue base was located. Changes in staff, format
and target resulted. Monster signal, and perceived monster reach, but
revenue producing listenership was off. King Kong was finally revealed
to be 3' 6". But the truth is, he always was. WLS, in Chicago, was
just another big signal. And it enjoyed a huge local share for a time.
Huge. But it was still a local station. That you could hear it from the
Rockies to Bermuda was only show biz. King Kong was still only 3' 6".


The public service commitment for Radio has been mostly lip service
for years, anyway. There simply is no profit in it. Hell, I worked for
one GM who SOLD PSA's. Nobody buys, none air. He had lawyers on speed
dial to protect his license. But he never actually did meet his
commitments. He was certainly not alone.

In the late 70's Jesus was kicked off the air at many stations.
Church services broadcast for decades disappeared in a stroke, to make
room for profit producing syndicated programming. Good for business,
but it orphaned smalls groups of loyal listeners for stations
nationwide. Ultimately a large population of listeners if taken as a
class, but a trivial number on the local stations Sales pitch. No
station failed because of them. It's always about the money. And it's
always about Sales. And all stations are bought for their local reach.

David and I have gotten into some pretty tense disagreements over the
state and nature of Radio. But his business is not in creating King Kong
stations of catholic interest and reach, his business is in turning
stations into more of a Mighty Joe Young. Still a lot of strength, but
strength where the money is. And that's locally. Without the wasted
effort into so called national reach. Why? Because he can make more
money for his stations by keeping the effort local. Where the
advertisers buy.

David touched on this but there wasn't a lot of amplification on it.
This is the crux of the matter: Advertisers call the shots. They always
have. Everywhere. Since the first broadcast station hit the air in the
US. The Advertiser calls the shots. Because without the advertiser,
stations do not survive. And if you think Public Radio is devoid of
advertiser pressures, guess again. Corporate underwriting is the
backbone of Public Radio, and corporate underwriters provide more
funding than public donations. Make no mistake, when a corporate sponsor
doesn't like a program....public or commercial radio...it is made clear
that revenue is threatened. And this has been the case since the birth
of the business.

Murrow wept openly in the hallowed halls of CBS when Chairman Paley
killed a story Murrow had been working on for months, bowing to
advertiser pressures. W.C. Fields sponsored by Lucky Strike make
frequent on-air references to his nephew 'Chester' to the horror and
eventual withdrawal of Lucky Strike. Fields often enraged sponsors.
Don't think there weren't heated conversations about his content.

Advertisers were responsible for the abrupt cancellation of a
consumer advocacy program on KRMD some years ago. In the middle of the
broadcast, Gene Dickerson walked into the control room and pulled the
talent out of the chair by his shirt collar under direct pressure from
an offended advertiser.

NPR, locally, has also killed or modified stories to protect funding.

And there are tens of thousands of such stories every year.

Should it happen? No. I don't think so. And there's a lot of evidence
to suggest that in many cases, the impact to advertisers' sales by the
offending content are, at best, minimal. But most GM's, most Chairmen,
most Sales ducks don't have the backbone to stand up to advertisers
writing checks that keep them in their lifestyles. So advertisers rule.
And they always have. In fact, the purpose of programming in the US has
always been to hold the attention of listeners between commercials. An
old joke, but it's always been true.

Radio in the US has always been about the money. Early stations in
rural areas began as ham stations owned by grain elevator operators. The
owners used to report grain prices to the farmers, a commercial
interest. When the grain elevator up the road also became radio
equipped, they began simple programming to fill the gaps between price
reports. This is how WDZ, Tuscola (later Decatur) began. It's how WLS
began. Live programming to fill time between commercial messages.

The commerical content ALWAYS being the more important issue.

And over time, the commercial content evolved, and rules regarding it
evolved, but it's importance and it's position in the scheme of things
has not diminished, but only gotten stronger.

So the methodology, whether it's flawed or not (and that can be
debated until the Second Coming), is the reality by which advertisers
live and die in broadcast media. They like the methodology. It's simple,
it's easily digested, and it produces hundreds of millions of dollars a
year in Sales. It's not going to change, until the revenue stream is
threatened by the external forces on the market. Advertisers call the
shots. They always have, and they always will. This is the way they
like it. It is what it is. And despite what you hear, have heard, or
will hear on the radio, King Kong is still only 3' 6". And so he will
remain, because the people with the money don't care to spend a dime to
see him larger.

David is in the business of keeping radio profitable for his clients.
He does this by showing his clients how to meet the needs of
advertisers. Advertisers who call all the shots. Sometimes you can get
control of an advertiser to do something that's more service oriented.
And for me, that's what keeps me even allied with Broadcast. It's worth
the effort and the heartache for that payoff. But, in the main....it's
just about doing what advertisers want. And the bulk of them do NOT care
about anything but what they see in the books. And the books were
created to meet their needs.

I don't like it. Anymore than you do. But it is what it is.

Unless you can get the advertisers to see a need for change, either
by convincing them, or through a market induced threat to revenue, it's
not going to change. Certainly not revert to the kind of Radio that you
and I enjoyed so many years ago.

Radio was in its adolescence, then. Still learning its way. It's not
now. Today, Radio is a mature product and to survive, it must
concentrate its efforts on to keep it's revenue stream intact. That's
the one thing that's never changed, over the years.

It is, and always has been about the money.