On Jul 13, 10:55*am, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:
On 07/13/09 10:31, David Eduardo wrote:





"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 07/13/09 08:51, David Eduardo wrote:

"dave" wrote in message
news:Cf6dnXCFBcsJvcbXnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@earthlink .com...
David Eduardo wrote:
The reason there are no more is that
listeners as a group don't like any more songs, no matter how deep
the research goes.

People don't listen in groups. Your research is flawed.

Radio audience is a group. To form a group, you have to attract
listeners with common likes and dislikes, and satisfy each of them.

No, Radio listening is done by individuals. It's done by individuals,
mostly in separate locations, under separate conditions, with
individual intent, tastes and needs of the moment. Radio listening is
an individual experience. Not a group marketing construct.

No disagreement. But from the persective of a radio staiton, one can
only form an audience, which is a group, by finding common appeal among
many, many individuals. The process consists in finding the common
thread among large groups of listeners, and providing it. The listener
wo thinks, "I like this music" or "I like this show" must be joined by
thousands if not tens of thousands of other people all at once for a
station to be successful.

The first step has to be that identification of broad likes. Then, the
content is delivered as if it were directed at each listener
individually. That is where one on one comes in... in the delivery, not
the design.

In airchecking, I often suggest that jocks put a picture of a loved one
or family menber over the mike so they talk to a person, not a crowd.
But, again, this only works if the program content is selected to appeal
to a bunch of listeners, a group.

Reread my statement... "Radio Audience is a Group." Each listener is an
individual, but the audience is a group.

* *I read it the first time, David. Or I wouldn't have had a response..

* *The 'audience' doesn't exist. It's an artificial construct to
gather together the numbers into a manageable device. But it's an
artificial construct, nothing more.



A good resstaurant may have a few customers who like beets. But maybe
80% of the customers hate them. So they would never serve beets as a
standard side. That's because they know most of the clients would not
enjoy their dining experience as much as were they to serve potatoes and
mixed veggies. The restaurant knows the base offerings must have broad
appeal to a group of clients. Otherwise, they fail.

* *Every restaurant I frequent will serve an alternate, if I ask.
They understand that general offerings don't get it, even for
patrons who seek out their restaurant based on genre.

* *Interesting you should mention beets. I get beets frequently.



The rest of your post was clipped, as you are harping on the idea that
we as an industry don't get that listening happens person by person. We
get that, but a station has to appeal to each person who belongs to a
group with common music likes and dislikes and which is large enough to
make the station successful (by whatever metric that is measured). And
that is where the concept of a group, a collection, an assembly enters
in. The key part of "broadcasting" today is "broad."

* *I"m sure that you get that listening happens person by person.
The fact you clipped the rest and reduced it to 'harping'
underscores my point that Radio isn't about the listeners. It's
about Radio. And for the bigger groups, the stock price.

* *The listeners are only a tool to a commercial end. Your job is to
sell us on the idea that we want what you offer.

* *Radio does what's good for Radio.

* *The listeners serve that end.

yep, there is a chinese buffet in my area, that also serves enough
america type of food, enough of a choice, that they drag in a large
group of repeat customers.