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

Everyone realizes the average listener only wants to hear a small bit of
new
music.

Only if you accept the thesis that "the average listener" is a
drooling idiot.

Only if you actually ask, as I do, tens of thousands of listeners a year
what they want to hear. essentially non want to hear more than a small
number of new songs each week.

Of course, since two decades of radio programming directed towards
morons has driven many non-morons away from radio entirely (at least
as a source on musical entertainment), this could now reasonably be
stipulated as the audience living up (or rather, down) to programmers'
expectations.

This is true of most human beings, radio listeners or not. The unfamiliar is
harder to assimilate than the familiar. Go to a club sometime and see which
songs the folks dance to... is it the unfamiliar or the known? Go to an
artist concert... when do the folks applaud? I'll bet it is when the artist
sings the big hits, not when they sing the unfamiliar new stuff they want to
hype from the new album.

95% of Americas listen to radio. Either you are wrong, or there are not many
bright people in America any more.

In article ,
David Eduardo wrote:

95% of Americas listen to radio.

I don't believe that number for a moment (even stipulating the typo).
If you had said "are exposed to radio every week", I might be willing
to go along. But exposure and the sort of attention that is implied
by "listen" are very different things -- something advertisers are
beginning to understand. (That's also one of the flaws in Arbitron's
"portable people meter" methodology: it's as good a measure as the
sample size allows for *exposure*, but can't measure *listening*.) As
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]

Although the current talk about shorter stop sets is evidence that
both broadcasters and advertisers are getting this message, it's not
clear that they will really benefit, now that they have trained the
audience to tune out (either mentally or physically) as soon as the
first spot begins. (How do you promote shorter stop sets? "Only five
commercials up next before another long music set on Q-92?")

Meanwhile, we have a whole generation growing up in today's toxic
media environment who neither look to radio for entertainment nor are
particularly influenced by current modes of advertising. (Brings a
new meaning to "you're soaking in it!") Compare the size of a
suburban teenager's music collection to the playlist of one of your
radio stations; I'll bet you nine times out of ten, your hypothetical
teenager enjoys a greater variety of music than you play.

For most of the past forty years, music radio has been the leader in
introducing people to new music, which they could then go out and buy.
(That's why over-the-air radio only has to pay license fees to the
songwriters and composers, and not to the performers or record labels:
it's considered a promotional expense to sell more recordings and
concert tickets.) 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?

Either you are wrong, or there are not many bright people in America
any more.

There never were, by definition. Garrison Keillor to the contrary,
there is no place were "all the children are above average".

-GAWollman

[1] A good example: I was at my dentist's office last week. As an
observant person and radio junkie, I noticed that she had WCRB on,
rather than her usual WROR-FM. If I had been wearing a PPM, it would
have credited WCRB with 45 minutes of my time -- even though I paid no
attention to it (or to the advertising messages) after recognizing the
source. I know from talking to my dentist that she puts the radio on
to provide soothing background noise; only a patient who has arrived
early for an appointment has enough attentional resources to notice
the actual content of the programming. I regularly freak out
Jennifer, the dental assistant, when I make an off-hand comment about
something that just came out of the radio, and she had so completely
tuned it out as background noise that she has absolutely no idea what
I'm talking about.

--
Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
| generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom.
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003)

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

95% of Americas listen to radio.

I don't believe that number for a moment (even stipulating the typo).
If you had said "are exposed to radio every week", I might be willing
to go along. But exposure and the sort of attention that is implied
by "listen" are very different things -- something advertisers are
beginning to understand.

Advertisers are not making distinctions because what they care about is
getting the message across, not who turned the radio on. In any case, many
different methodologies, including Arbitron, show that 95% of average
Americans... or Canadians... or Mexicans... listen to the radio at least
once a week with enough awareness to identify such listening. Such surveys
can even be replicated with simple phone samples. It is a fairly uncontested
fact in media and ad circles.

(That's also one of the flaws in Arbitron's
"portable people meter" methodology: it's as good a measure as the
sample size allows for *exposure*, but can't measure *listening*.)

First, no one cares. Second, the People Meter is not in use yet in the US
and it will probably not be until,perhaps, 2007 at the earliest.

As
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.

Although the current talk about shorter stop sets is evidence that
both broadcasters and advertisers are getting this message, it's not
clear that they will really benefit, now that they have trained the
audience to tune out (either mentally or physically) as soon as the
first spot begins. (How do you promote shorter stop sets? "Only five
commercials up next before another long music set on Q-92?")

Shorter stop sets are intended to improve the effectiveness of messages and
to keep listeners longer. Many boroadcasters were not running excessive spot
loads anyway... and none were running the loads common in the 50's and 60's.

Meanwhile, we have a whole generation growing up in today's toxic
media environment who neither look to radio for entertainment nor are
particularly influenced by current modes of advertising. (Brings a
new meaning to "you're soaking in it!") Compare the size of a
suburban teenager's music collection to the playlist of one of your
radio stations; I'll bet you nine times out of ten, your hypothetical
teenager enjoys a greater variety of music than you play.

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

For most of the past forty years, music radio has been the leader in
introducing people to new music, which they could then go out and buy.
(That's why over-the-air radio only has to pay license fees to the
songwriters and composers, and not to the performers or record labels:
it's considered a promotional expense to sell more recordings and
concert tickets.)

Wrong. the reason the RIAA never got performance rights such as are common
in other developed nations is that they did not get to the table early
enough, and now it is too late.

As to being considered promotional expense, that is pure malarky.

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. 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; in the 50's and 60's you got 2 to 3 adds on a mass appeal
top 40 station, and that was all.

[1] A good example: I was at my dentist's office last week. As an
observant person and radio junkie, I noticed that she had WCRB on,
rather than her usual WROR-FM. If I had been wearing a PPM, it would
have credited WCRB with 45 minutes of my time -- even though I paid no
attention to it (or to the advertising messages) after recognizing the
source.

No different than a person who puts on a radio and leaves it on during
work... may only hear part of the ads. Advertisers know that. Always been
that way.

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. 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.

-GAWollman

[1] Just look around at college stations whose affiliated schools do
not have broadcast, communications, or journalism programs. Many of
them have great difficulty getting actual students (whose activity
fees often pay for the station) to take any interest at all in radio
as anything other than "a bigger music collection than I have at
home". All too often, the program schedule is dominated by alumni,
unaffiliated community members, and others from the previous
generation.

--
Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
| generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom.
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003)

"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.

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! 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.

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.

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.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
| generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom.
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003)

"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.

Good points all.

Check out:

http://www.radioadlab.org/