"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...


Fair enough, on all counts. Certainly the issue of intent has a lot to do
with it.
I still think that artist-oriented promotions are bad for the business,
though, since
it gives the established major labels more of an advantage than the
indies.
--

Artist promotions are seldom done with unknown artists. Usually, stations
limit such activities to tie ins with major artists or newer ones who have a
string of recent hits. So, the issue for big vs. small labels is in getting
initial airplay or sales or alternative media promotion (like clubs for
dance music), since stations will not do a promotion with a "small" artist
as a general rule. the idea, of course, is to tie in with the bigness of the
artist to enhance the station image.

"Garrett Wollman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Eduardo wrote:

[I wrote:]
an advertiser, a potential customer who is merely exposed to my
message is not worth nearly as much as a potential customer who is
actually paying attention.[1]

There is no way of telling this with any kind of sample. Advertisers know
this, and know that a percentage of messages are not noticed for a variety
of reasons. You won't see this discussed in AdAge... just here, where no
national advertisers are paying any attention.

Actually, there is a very easy way for an advertiser to tell whether
their message is reaching customers who are paying attention: ask the
customers!

That only shows a tiny portion oflisteners... those who at that moment have
an interest in the particular product or service. For example, a person who
buys a new car every 4 years only pays attention to car ads when the time
comes to look for a new car. Otherwise, they do not hear the ads at all.

I can't think of any major purchase I've made where the
seller did not do so, either at the time of sale/service or during
post-sales followup. I've also been the recipient of a number of
brand-awareness telephone surveys which measure the same thing for
non-durable goods.

That does not measure whether people heard the ad or not. It only measures
the effectiveness of the ad in getting people who are potential consumers to
buy or inquire.

Today, with a few bright exceptions, radio has made
itself largely irrelevant to this marketplace. Is it any wonder that
audiences no longer expect radio to provide new music?

They never did, except in small amounts.

That's odd. Evidently you were not listening to the same radio
stations as I was in the 1980s.

Stations in the 80's introduced new songs into their formats at about the
same rate as in any other decade. In fact, the 80's was the decade when
music research other than tracking sales came into its own, and that caused
a reduction, if anything, in new music adds.

what has happened is that more now
music is being exposed today, as there are more formats available on more
stations in every market. A couple of weekly adds a week across 10 formats
is a lot of songs;

Nobody listens to ten formats in one week.

No, the average is 3 to 4. But who cares? I don't want to hear new or old
music in a format that I do not enjoy. However, the fact that so many
different formats are exposing some new songs each week means that there are
more opportunities to break a song.

"Garrett Wollman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Eduardo wrote:

Radio does not target teens in most markets since there is little ad money
against them.

Today's teens are not going to magically "grow into" radio listeners
when they hit 21.

Actually, most do. Once a person has more concerns in life, like a job,
family, and such, they find the time needed to download, burn CDs and such
is much more limited. So radio take a place in thier lives gradually in the
18-24 period.

I work with a lot of twenty-somethings, and when I
ask them about what their radio listening preferences are, the answer
I invariably get (and have gotten for at least the past five years) is
"none". They have no use for it.[1] Not having formed the radio
habit, they are unlikely to suddenly start listenting when they leave
school.

Actual market measurements done scientifically show that, even in 18-24,
over 90% of people use radio weekly.

"David Eduardo" writes:

"Garrett Wollman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Eduardo wrote:

Radio does not target teens in most markets since there is little ad money
against them.

Today's teens are not going to magically "grow into" radio listeners
when they hit 21.

Actually, most do. Once a person has more concerns in life, like a
job, family, and such, they find the time needed to download, burn
CDs and such is much more limited. So radio take a place in thier
lives gradually in the 18-24 period.

But what happens when it doesn't take any time to download,
and there's no burning? When your local-wireless (Bluetooth
or whatever) enabled pocket music library device just gets an
automatically downloaded playlist of recent stuff (based on an
automatically learned profile of the types of things you like
and how adventerous you are)? You just pick it up and carry
it with you, and play it wherever you go. Your wireless
mobile network device picks up your news, weather, and traffic,
in the car, office, or home. And there are no commercials in
all this (except maybe the ones you actually ask for).

I think there's just about one more generation left before
that's the way it all works. There will still be a need
for content, but the broadcasting mediums and economics
might be very different from what we've had up to this point.

Good points all.

Check out:

http://www.radioadlab.org/