On Oct 4, 11:22 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in ...
.



What Radio claims,...and I can speak with some clarity, here, having
been involved in the process for a good chunk of my career, even up to
this last spring,...is that what it does is dicated to by the public,
based on focus groups, perceptual research, and music tests in front of
listeners. And that advertisers and listeners respond positively. What
Radio doesn't tell you, is that the focus groups are highly selected from
'desirable' listeners, as defined by advertiser requirements and
expectations,

Now that is a generalization that my fit one company, but in every
experience I have, with a dozen research companies I have delt with, as well
as our own, such a statement is, if not an exaggeration, a lie.

Most listener research is done to best serve an existing format. So one
picks mostly one's own listeners.... and generally, those who listen a lot
(so they will know the music or format or hosts or whatever) and tries to
find what will serve them better. Some secondary listeners are picked...
those who may listen more to another station, but who also have enough
interest in our station to know about the music or the programming.

I have never heard the word "advertiser" mentionend in the recruit specs for
a music test or a perceptual. The usual things a age (concentrated in the
ages where aobut 75% to 80% of the station listeners are located) sex (in
balance with Arbitron audience composition), ethnicity (a CHR in LA might do
half and half Other and Hispanic), and a minimum usage of the P1 or P2
station under study to insure knowledge of the station music or format.

Most radio researchers do not use focus groups. For music tests, most
research on ongoing stations is several music tests a year, to determine
what to play and what not to, and how often. Again, no advertiser
involvement, and the sales department seldom even knows a test is done.

and those focus groups of highly selected 'desirable' listeners, go on to
form, or define, the essential language used in perceptuals that are used
in determining the formatics, playlists and production elements of the
radio station to serve the 'desirable' listener.

I have never seen this done this way. You may have. If you did, it was done
wrong.

Focus groups are ´perceptuals, and perceptual research is based generally on
a combination of neutral questions with attention on low interviewer bias.
Most radio perceptuals are done on the phone, and are a combination of open
ended, scaled and fixed response questions. The secret is in the cross
tabulation of the hard data, like demos, and the frequency in each cell of a
particular verbatim from an open ended question.

Format searches are the broadest, usually done by playing pods of many
different kinde of music and doing a question set on like / intent /
availability and canibalization questions. I've done ones with up to 17
different pods, and also done ones where a follow up with blends of pods
were tested.



Music tests, themselves are comprised of highly selected listeners to
respond to songs, for the purpose of determining playlists to serve
'desirable' listeners.

The only desirable listener is the one who will listen a long time. The only
filters are age, sex (are they where most of the listeners are), ethnicity,
and hours of listening to that "kind" of music on our station or a very
similar competitor. For example, WLEY in Chicago is going to test 21-39 year
olds (that is where over 80% of listeners already are), 100% mexican (that
is the format... Mexican music), 60% men (that is the balance for the
format, for them and everyone) and mostly those who listen a minimum of an
hour a day to them, or maybe 5 hours a week to them and 5 minimum a week to
music on WOJO.

There is nothing desirable or undesirable there... just a snapshot of the
listener and potential listener, eliminating those who do not listen enough
to radio to know the music... because they could not score it appropriately
if they do not know it.

Crest does not do research with people who wear dentures... there is always
selection based on who will be the heavy users of any service or goods.



It's a closed loop. Created to meet the needs of advertisers first. And
then attract the advertisers 'desirable' listeners to the radio station.

No such thing. I have participated in well over 100 tests from vendors, and
have done close to 1000 projects myself, as well as an equal or greater
number of call out cycles and a few hundred perceptual projects. None has
ever had the word "advertiser" attached or implied.



Formats are specifically chosen to meet an advertiser's need.

No, the only place this comes into play is in the knowing that there is no
revenue in 12-17 or 55+ so we don't even look for that kind of format
because it is not viable.



Nowhere in the process, is the concept of 'serving in the pubic
interest' apparent. Even ascertainment, at most of the stations I've been
involved with, has been done with a closed loop.

Finding out what songs the listeners want to hear is not serving? Finding
out what topics and content morning and talk show listeners want is not
serving? Finding out how often and what roads are important for traffic
reports is not serving?



So, Roy, it's a lot more than just a Radio believing it has the right
to be paid for it's product. It's more like Radio believing the public
exists to serve Radio and Advertising. And to select what will be and will
not be acceptable for it's listeners, by manipulating its own research.

That's just plain BS. You started with a false premise that audience
research is something that it is not, and took it from there.



Jim Collins, in "Good to Great" said the hallmark of good research is
that it produces something that you don't expect. The hallmark of GREAT
research is that it gives you something you don't like.

The main purpose of music testing is to get rid of the stiffs. In talent
testing, it is to get rid of negatives. In staiton testing, it is to find
defects and correct them. That is the whole purpose of research... enhance
the good, modify the bad.



Radio has neither been surprised, nor disappointed, with its research,
since John Sebastian ruined KHJ.

I can take the best research and make a crappy station. Research is a tool.
I can take carpentry tools and ruin a lot of fine wood too. It's also about
the skills of the station staff.



Listen to how David Gleason presents his case...all based on numbers
that are highly selected, and highly interpreted. Numbers, which
themselves are based on responses of individuals that are highly selected.

No, they are not selected. If I say AM listening in LA is 17% of the total
listening, 12+, how is that selected? The Arbitron universe is not selected,
it is as close as possibly to a totally proportional sample, where everyone
has the same weight



Which is kind of amusing. Because where Radio has dared to open the
loop, risks have been high, but successes have been huge.

We do that all the time, with the aid of research. My overnight guy from
KWIZ in Santa Ana now has about 3 million daily cume on 40 stations. Our "it
won't work" Mexican adult hits is now on 12 stations and #1 or #2 Spanish
language. My "it won't work here" 100% local artist rock station in Buenos
Aires was #1 in a month, front page news in the press, and had never been
done before in a market with over 250 stations (more than 100 LPFM
equivalents, for example). We look outside the loop all the time. It is
usually the listeners who tell us where to look.

d'Eduardo - I Like DPM's Analysis and Reasoning Better. ~ RHF

Your 'analysis' and 'reasoning' are Irrelevant.

Your 'research' is Flawed and It will NOT be Incorporated.

Your 'perceptuals' are in Error and They will NOT be Assimilated.

Your 'logic-and-argument' are Futile.

d'Eduardo - You are a BORG of Radio Media Marketing Collective Think.

i am not a sample - my ears are not sellable - i am not borg ~ RHF
.