Home » Archives for Warren Kurtzman » Page 6

Author: Warren Kurtzman

Blog

How’s Radio Doing in Australia and New Zealand?

Comment

Tuesdays With Coleman

I recently returned from Australia and New Zealand, where I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives of most of the major radio groups in both countries. If you’ve ever visited either country, you know that—thanks to breathtaking scenery, friendly people and excellent cuisine—it’s next to impossible to come home with anything but positive perceptions. But as I reflect on my meetings, I am struck by how positive my perceptions are of the radio industries in both countries.

Sydney Harbour Bridge

My wife Sharon and I atop the Sydney Harbour Bridge

In the simplest terms, radio is killing it in Australia and New Zealand. Revenue is strong, the major groups enjoy solid financial positions and the medium’s share of the advertising pie is higher than it is in North America.

In fact, an executive with one of Australia’s largest groups—a very smart guy who I have known for more than a decade—challenged me to convince him that “US radio still has something to offer to Australian radio” and to help him “fall in love with US radio again.” Fortunately, after acknowledging the difficult period our industry went through following The Great Recession, our discussion about the impact of two of our three major groups emerging from bankruptcy, the increased investments companies like mine are seeing in research and the industry’s embrace of podcasting and other new platforms led him to agree that paying attention to developments in radio on our side of the Atlantic could still be a good idea for his company.

If I had to boil down why radio is going so well in Australia and New Zealand into three points, they would be as follows:

  1. Radio in Australia and New Zealand is embracing change. The radio groups there do not look at the introduction of new technologies as threats but embrace them as opportunities. For example, Commercial Radio Australia—the trade association representing Australia’s radio broadcasters—partnered with Amazon before the introduction of the Echo smart speaker to ensure that any of the country’s 300 AM, FM or DAB+ digital stations can be easily accessed by name or frequency.

 

  1. Radio in Australia and New Zealand is investing in nonmusical content. While streaming and other platforms for consuming music are not yet as prevalent as they are in North America, most music stations in both countries’ major markets feature prominent personalities in morning and afternoon drive. Furthermore, the use of syndicated morning shows is much less common than it is the US.

 

  1. Radio in Australia and New Zealand does a lot of research. Given what I do for a living, it is refreshing to have conversations with radio groups about what kinds of and how much research they should be doing, as opposed to discussing whether they should do research in the first place. There is plenty of room for the art of programming in Australia and New Zealand; however, radio programmers in both countries get to create their art with objective knowledge about what listeners want and perceive they’re getting from radio.

Each country faces unique challenges, and I want to stress that I am encouraged by the progress I’m seeing on all these fronts by radio groups in North America. Many companies that are embracing new technologies and investing in their brands are seeing their efforts pay off.

Auckland, New Zealand

A picturesque backdrop of Auckland, New Zealand

While radio professionals around the world can certainly learn best practices and new ideas from North American radio, I think we can all be inspired by what Aussie and Kiwi radio is accomplishing. I absolutely found the 40 hours it took me to travel there and back was well worth it!

Blog

The Great Data Quality Summit

Comment

Tuesdays With Coleman

Recently a great, long-time client of ours disclosed to me that they fielded a research project with another company. This is not unusual; we often encourage our clients to get other perspectives on challenging situations.

In this case, however, the client told me that they were no more than two or three PowerPoint slides into the presentation when they realized something was amiss. There were numerous red flags in the data the other company began presenting that made our client question the credibility of the entire study. Before the presentation was even over, our client decided to set aside the research project.

I must admit that a part of me was pleased that this experience provided our client with a strong reaffirmation of the quality of the data they receive from us. As an advocate for research in the designing of strategies for media properties, however, I was angered that our client was so badly let down and how such an experience could taint the reputation of the research industry field in general. In addition, I was reminded how important it is that media companies understand as much as possible about what goes into producing high quality data for use in making decisions about branding, positioning, marketing and content execution.

At the heart of a good research study is that the respondents who participate in it appropriately represent the population you are trying to measure. In the “old days” this was relatively simple because we could easily reach virtually the entire population by conducting interviews on the phone. Today, when we conduct most of our interviewing online (although continue to conduct telephone interviews to reach some segments of the population), the process has become vastly more complicated.

This is why nine of my Coleman Insights colleagues—including representatives from our Integr8 Research subsidiary—and I spent three days north of the border a few weeks ago. The headquarters of our primary fielding partner is in Canada and we visited with their staff for what I like to think of as The Great Data Quality Summit.

Great Data Quality Summit

The Coleman Insights and Integr8 Research teams with our fielding partners in Canada

We tackled important issues with our fielding partner, including improving security to prevent hackers from infiltrating our surveys, enhancing analysis tools to identify and remove respondents who are not who they say they are and steps to improve the survey experience for respondents. Our meetings were an important reminder for our staff and our fielding partner that the process of collecting research data online—and correctly integrating it with telephone survey data—is a challenging and evolving one and only by staying on top of developments in internet-based research can we ensure that we continue to deliver high quality data to our clients.

Conducting research online requires more than buying access to an online panel—even a so-called “A”-graded panel—and sending survey invitations to its members. Getting the “right” people in surveys who represent the population you are trying to measure requires knowledge about the panel assets being used, extensive experience in survey design, advanced analytical tools and dedication to doing the work required to produce high quality data.

We had nearly half of our staff spend three days in Canada to make sure we are on top of our game. If you are a Coleman Insights or Integr8 Research client, I am confident that you will see the benefits of our ongoing efforts to do things the right way. If you work with another research company, I urge you to learn as much as possible about how they gather, analyze and tabulate the data they deliver to you.

While we don’t foresee challenges getting any easier, we do feel accountability is imperative to ensure your study accurately guides your brand’s strategy, now and in the future.

Blog

How Podcasting Passes the Tipping Point

2 Comments

Tuesdays With Coleman

My colleagues John Boyne, Sam Milkman and Jay Nachlis and I just returned from Philadelphia, where we had the opportunity to deliver a presentation on content testing and sponsor the Industry track at Podcast Movement. To say we are invigorated from our Podcast Movement experience is an understatement; the conference was huge—over 2,200 attendees—and the presence of youth, energy and diversity was striking.

Podcast Movement 2018

Even more important than the size and make-up of the crowd, however, is the sense we have that podcasting is (finally!) nearing a tipping point. As our friendly competitors at Edison Research have meticulously documented, the podcasting audience continues to grow, yet only 17% of Americans listen to a podcast each week. What is striking about that is the rate of growth for podcasting has been dramatically slower than the rates of adoption we have seen in recent years for a wide array of new technologies and platforms, including mobile phones, streaming, social media and smart speakers.

Podcasting has been on the radars of people in the audio business and media savvy consumers for more than a decade, yet some still question whether it is a real business and whether it will achieve widespread consumer adoption. The size of Podcast Movement and the highly visible presence of radio-centric companies like iHeartMedia, Cumulus, Hubbard and Beasley at the conference, however, suggests that such questions are becoming the exception rather than the norm.

What will it take for podcasting to pass the tipping point we anticipate? We believe it boils down to three key points:

  1. Building Brands:

When syndicated iHeartRadio Country morning personality and new VP, Creative Director of iHeartCountry Bobby Bones spoke as part of the “Broadcasters Meet Podcasters” track at Podcast Movement, he explained why listeners choose his show. “I built a brand and the brand is why the listeners come.”

He spoke about branding far more than he spoke about content, which left a clear message for podcasters. Your brand is why they come to your show. The content is why they stay.

It’s our experience that media brands that invest in clearly defining their brands build bigger audiences and are built for long-lasting success. Is your radio station the hit music station? Are you the go-to website for sports? Do consumers turn to you first for coverage of politics?

This is how the most successful podcasts will win. Consumers need to be able to easily identify show themes like “The True Crime podcast” or “The Cooking podcast” or “The podcast that talks about the 80s,” for example.

Of course, there are plenty of podcasts that cover those topics. If content quality is equal, the one with the best brand will win.

  1. Invest In Content:

Speaking of content, podcasts will need to follow the lead of other media in taking a disciplined approach towards content execution. At the very least, podcasters need to make investments in research to learn more about what listeners want from podcasts and the specifics of what works and what doesn’t work with the content they offer.

Some podcasts are highly disciplined in their topic choices and execution. Others are handled in a much looser format.

In our Podcast Movement presentation, “The Podcast Content Deep Dive: A Second-by-Second Look at Audience Behavior,” Sam and John revealed the three Ts of content execution—Topic, Treatment and Tone.

Podcast Movement Session

(L-R) John Boyne, Sam Milkman and iHeartMedia SVP/Podcasting Chris Peterson at “The Podcast Content Deep Dive” at Podcast Movement

While we’ll go deeper into our discoveries in next week’s blog and in an upcoming webinar, there are lessons that apply to all audio content, whether delivered via podcast or broadcast.

  1. Reduce Consumer Friction:

Is the process of finding, accessing and listening to podcasts is too complex for the average consumer?

Does the average consumer really know how to download a podcast or where to do it?

Do people even know what to call the purple podcast button on iPhones? Meanwhile, there are multiple apps to choose from on Google Play including RadioPublic, Stitcher and Google Podcasts (which just launched a new app in June). Other podcast sources include iHeartRadio and Spotify.

Would the industry be better off with a strongly-branded, user-friendly platform exclusively devoted to podcasting? Our sense is that the answer to this question is absolutely “yes.” The industry needs the YouTube of the podcast industry. Then, consumers need to know about it and understand how to use it.

One thing is for sure. We’re excited about the future of podcasting and look forward to helping this still-fledgling industry vault past the tipping point. To get there, podcasting needs to become easier for the average consumer to use, while at the same time focusing on building strong brands and developing great content.

Blog

Introducing Coleman Insights

Comment

Tuesdays With Coleman

Back in May, we delivered a presentation at Worldwide Radio Summit called “Outside Thinking: Flip The Script On How You Think About Your Radio Station.”

Inside Thinking is what happens when you think like an employee of your company. Outside Thinking is what happens when you think like a consumer or prospective consumer of your company.

It was the principles of Outside Thinking, one of our core philosophies at Coleman Insights, that led us to a few debuts in the digital space a few days ago.

First and foremost is our new video, “This Is Coleman Insights.”

Why would we produce a video explaining what Coleman Insights is all about? After all, our company has been around since 1978. We work with hundreds of radio stations and media brands. Shouldn’t people already know what they need to know about Coleman Insights?

That’s Inside Thinking.

Outside Thinking dictates that there will always be prospective customers with no previous knowledge of our brand.

Inside Thinking tells us prospective and even current clients understand what goes into our projects.

Outside Thinking calls for introducing the people behind the projects. As Jon Coleman notes at the start of the video, “Research can be kind of intimidating, sterile, and have a lot of grey in terms of interpretation.”

A Coleman Insights study features a group of media research experts working collaboratively behind the scenes to ensure the insights we deliver are crystal clear and actionable, and anything but sterile. We wanted to introduce those people and the process to you.

We’ve also made some improvements to our website.

You’ll notice that video is front and center, and you’ll find some FAQs answered by our senior consultants.

Outside Thinking is thinking like your customer, so we’re offering answers to some of the questions we often hear.

I hope you’ll watch the video of our Outside Thinking presentation, which you’ll also find on our site.

We’ll continue to look for ways to practice Outside Thinking here at Coleman Insights and look forward to sharing the journey with you.

Blog

Be True To Your Base Position

2 Comments

Tuesdays With Coleman

Does your brand have a base position? No matter what industry, whatever the size of the company…you must have a clearly understood base position.

When we work with radio stations, we often refer to the foundation of our Image PyramidSM—the base music or talk position. For the other components of the pyramid (personality, specialty programming, contests, marketing, news and community) to enhance the performance of your station, listeners must instantly understand the basics of your brand.

Coleman Insights Image Pyramid

Is it the rock station? The sports station? The hit music station?

It’s not only essential for listeners to understand your base position in a simplistic way—you have to understand it as well. It has to be in the fabric of everything you do.

My wife Sharon and I are “foodies” who love to explore the burgeoning restaurant scene where we live in Raleigh, North Carolina.  One of our favorite restaurants clearly has a base position.

Royale is a French-American bistro that opened in November 2016 and at the time, the only way to make reservations was via Instagram. The menu was limited, with no more than five or six entrees choices available. Still, the food was delicious, the service was outstanding and the atmosphere was hopping. After one or two visits, you couldn’t help but have a strong and clear perception of what Royale was all about.

Royale is a hip, downtown Raleigh hotspot with high quality French-American food.

That’s their base position.

Over five or six dining experiences since, we have observed changes to Royale.

You can now make reservations online—albeit only on Resy, not on OpenTable—or even by phone. The menu includes more choice while retaining its distinct French-American flavor. Heck, they now even have a nightly special.

These changes allowed Royale to broaden and become more mass appeal without compromising their base position.

By evolving and staying true to their base position, Royale added brand depth—similar to how a radio station adds brand depth with personalities and contests. Just as radio stations need to establish a clear understanding of their base position before focusing on other elements, Royale set a defined expectation of what the brand stands for.

Restaurants have a wide range of strategic options at their disposal, just like radio stations.

Royale could have looked to expand their customer base by, for example, lowering prices. That would have compromised the quality promise in their base position. They could have started accepting coupons or expanded their menu options outside of French-American cuisine.

These moves may offer short-term gain but in the long run would be severely detrimental to the brand.

Just like restaurants, radio stations evolve and add brand depth. That brand depth, however, has to be in concert with the base position or it will erode the brand.

It’s as true in the restaurant business as it is in radio. When you add depth while remaining true to your brand, the sky is the limit.

Blog

Is Inside Thinking Blurring Your Strategic Vision?

Comment

Tuesdays With Coleman

If you work at a radio station (or in any business, for that matter), it’s easy to get caught up in Inside Thinking. We sometimes get too close to the product for our own good, and are unable to see it through the lens of our customers. When you’re the manager of a radio station, this can lead to blurred strategic vision, exemplified by statements such as, “We just need to know what’s most popular with 25- to 39-year old men because that is our target.”

Is that really enough?

This is the final installment of a four-part series that revisits a Radio & Records column I wrote in 1999. It describes scenarios I ran into when speaking with radio station managers about research projects. All of these scenarios, including Scenario 4 – No Strategic Vision, still come up with regularity 18 years later.

The inability of some managers to look at their stations from any other perspective than from inside the stations’ walls manifests itself in Inside Thinking. These managers believe that listeners:

  • Care deeply about radio
  • Are paying close attention to our stations
  • Can be manipulated

Conversely, Outside Thinkers believe the opposite. They understand that listeners’ station choices are:

  • Driven substantially by habit
  • A result of instantaneous need fulfillment
  • Based on a simplistic set of perceptions they have of different stations
  • Impacted by the role of language
  • Determined by their lifestyle

This very different mindset leads Outside Thinkers to approach research with a much more strategic point of view rather than simply trying to find out what listeners do and do not like. They use research to ask questions like:

  • What is my station’s awareness level in the market?
  • How different is my actual product and what people perceive my product to be?
  • Where do the musical tastes of my market really lie and are they moving in the direction that I believe they are?
  • Does the fact that my target demo share dropped by 25% over the last two Nielsen books really mean that my position in the market has weakened?
  • Am I focusing my energy and my resources on the right things?

Our suggestion that radio managers take the Outside Thinking approach to their stations—and their research—provides a good final thought for this four-part blog series. Our previous installments warned against obsessing over methodology, not investing in research when your station is successful and confusing tactical and strategic research. Outside Thinkers rarely make these mistakes, and as a result, their stations are far more likely to enjoy long-term success.

Blog

Why Does Tactical Research Need Strategic Research?

Comment

Tuesdays With Coleman

In the last couple of “Tuesdays with Coleman” blogs, I’ve revisited a Radio & Records column I wrote in 1999. The column introduced four scenarios I ran into when speaking with radio station managers about research projects. As I mentioned previously in this series, despite the dramatic changes in the radio industry over the last 18 years, my colleagues and I still encounter these scenarios, which prevent managers from getting the full benefit of conducting research on their stations.

Today, we’ll discuss Scenario 3 – Confusing Tactical and Strategic Research. In this scenario, a Rock station hires us to conduct a strategic study—at Coleman Insights, we call this a Plan Developer study—after years of relying on rudimentary music testing from another research provider. After those tests caused the program director to “yank” the station back and forth between newer and older and between softer and harder sounds, the general manager—who was frustrated with the station’s mediocre ratings performance—prevailed upon ownership to fund strategic research.

Plan Developer

Among other findings, the study revealed that the best opportunity for the station was to focus its music mix on mainstream Classic Rock titles primarily from the 70s and 80s. The program director, however, would have none of this, claiming that he couldn’t get a lot of that material “to test.” He said that his testing revealed many of his station’s listeners liked Alternative titles from the 90s and Flashback songs from the 80s and bristled at our suggestion that these sounds should be eliminated from the library.

The PD was right—the people participating in his tests gave 90s Alternative and 80s Flashback titles high marks. However, he was wrong that his station should be playing them.

First, the design of his music testing sample was off-target from where the real opportunity existed—focused on mainstream Classic Rock from the 70s and 80s. Our Plan Developer revealed that the station should focus its music testing on men in their late 30s and 40s; the PD was testing his music with a younger sample that was balanced between the genders. Second, the test list he prepared for each test was not focused on the sounds the Plan Developer suggested should be at the core of the station’s strategy. Third, the Plan Developer revealed that the audience expected Classic Rock from the station and that if it could simply grow its images for Classic Rock, its performance should improve significantly. This was eye-opening for the general manager. The station had not done a strategic study in years and its annual music tests did not include any measure of audience expectations, such as the Fit measurement Coleman Insights includes in its FACT360 Strategic Music Tests.

Long story short: Management instructed the PD to follow the Plan Developer music recommendations, including bringing its future music tests in line with the strategy. The PD rebelled, eventually left on his own accord and a new PD came on board and implemented “The Plan.” She looks like a genius, as the station now consistently finishes in the top five in a very competitive market.

While all the research you deploy should have elements of strategy in it, when it is predominately tactical in nature (i.e., rudimentary library tests, simple callout, listener surveys, etc.), the results should never be allowed to take your station off course. Stations that practice having their tactical research—especially their music testing—flow from their strategic research usually win.

Blog

Why Successful Radio Stations Need Research

Comment

This week, we continue with part 2 of a blog series that revisits a column I wrote for Radio & Records in 1999 found while digging through the Coleman Insights archives.

Radio and Records

Despite significant changes in the industry over the past 18 years, I’ve been struck by how little some things have changed. I discussed four scenarios in which radio managers fail to get the full benefit of conducting research on their stations. This week, we’ll put the spotlight on:

Scenario 2 – We Have Great Numbers: A program director dismisses any need for conducting research on her station by citing its performance in the latest Nielsen book.

There is no question that Nielsen represents “the bottom line.” I worked for Arbitron, which was acquired by Nielsen in 2013, for six years and experienced how significantly the company’s data impacted radio stations first hand. This experience—and my contact with the company since I left there in 1993—taught me a great deal about the quality of the information they provide, even if there is always room to improve it.

Using Nielsen to assess how your station is doing, however, is not a very good use of their data. In fact, it is downright dangerous. Listener appetites and the competitive landscape can change so quickly that what Nielsen reported in the fall book might have little bearing on the winter results. It’s also been my experience that ratings performance and the strength of your position are not perfectly correlated.

Let’s play out a hypothetical situation. Let’s say you’re in charge of an Adult Contemporary station, currently number one in your target demo. When it comes to music, you’ve got a lot of room to play with and your playlist covers various segments of the format spanning four decades. Your morning show gets decent numbers, but at-work listening is where your station really shines. With things going so well, it would be easy to say, “Why do research”?

There are a couple of things that tend to remain constant in radio. First, you probably won’t stay on top forever. Second, if you are at or near the top, a competitor will likely try to slice into your success. What if you knew, with a great deal of clarity, where your own strengths and weaknesses lie? What if you knew the strengths and weaknesses of other stations in the market? What if you knew if the musical tastes of the market were changing? What if you knew that the awareness level and appeal of your morning show wasn’t as high as you expected? What if you discovered the broad nature of your playlist made you vulnerable to a more focused attack?

Would you rather have answers to these questions before your radio station is attacked?

A perceptual study—at Coleman Insights, it’s called a Plan DeveloperSM—can  help shore up your fort before it is too late to discover your vulnerabilities. Perceptual research can also discover what your brand stands for in the marketplace.  Stations with strong brands are far more equipped to withstand ratings wobbles than those without. Focusing on the next ratings book is a short-term strategy.  Focusing on research that builds your brand is a long-term approach built for long-term success.

What kind of research should you do and is it giving you the results you need? Furthermore, are the results being interpreted properly as part of a larger brand strategy? Next week, we’ll focus on Scenario 3 – Confusing Tactical and Strategic Research.    

 

 

 

 

 

Blog

The Research Methodology Trap

Comment

I was recently cleaning out the Coleman Insights archives and came across a column I wrote for Radio & Records in 1999. (Step in the DeLorean and check it out on Page 96 here.)

Radio and Records

In that article, I described four problematic scenarios my colleagues and I often encountered when radio station personnel discussed research with us. What struck me as I read the column—beyond how much younger I looked in the photo that accompanied it!—is the frequency with which we still encounter many of these scenarios. Sure, the ways listeners consume audio and the dynamics of the radio industry have changed dramatically over the past 18 years, but the fact that the points raised in my column still resonated really caught my attention.

Thus, in this four-part blog series, I’ll revisit those scenarios with some updates.  This week, we’ll focus on Scenario 1 – The Methodology Focus.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with questions about research methodology.  In fact, any manager who does not understand the methodology his or her research company is using—including the benefits and drawbacks of each element of that methodology—is selling his or her station short.

The problem with this scenario stems from where it starts. If you are dealing with a credible firm, they will propose a research program that is customized to your specific issues, rather than force a “boilerplate” 400-person perceptual study down your throat. While many firms (including ours) will have their own methodological approaches, the good ones will adapt their ways of doing things to what you need to accomplish with your research.

Instead of focusing on the technical merits or drawbacks of a potential research partner’s methodology, you should be trying to answer more important questions about them, such as:

  • “Have they demonstrated a clear understanding of what I am trying to accomplish through research?”
  • “How is their track record with helping stations in similar situations?”
  • “Do they have an agenda or will they be straight with me about what the findings say?”
  • “Will they provide me with data or will they go further and help me interpret the numbers and make recommendations on how I should proceed?”
  • “To what degree will they help me implement changes based on the research?”

Believe me, methodology is important. There is enough research out there based on poor design, dubious samples and weak quality control worthy of multiple columns dedicated to that subject on its own. However, if the relationship with the research company is built on your feelings about their methodology and not on whether they truly understand your situation and have the knowledge to help you, the odds of both parties ending up disappointed are very high.

Why invest in research when ratings already look great? Next week, we’ll focus on Scenario 2 – We Have Great Numbers.  

Blog

Every Song You Play Is A Marketing Decision

Comment

Coleman Insights recently introduced the FACT360 Strategic Music Test. FACT360 is online music testing done right through the latest sampling techniques and data collection capabilities, and includes the same benefits that Coleman Insights has provided through its FACT Strategic Music Tests for more than 20 years. These benefits help radio stations build the most appealing and strategically on-target libraries possible.

In the spirit of our launch of FACT360, we present the first in a series of five blogs authored by Coleman Insights executives covering important considerations about music testing and music strategy. This first blog is written by president/chief operating officer Warren Kurtzman and covers the most basic, but most important things he has learned about music testing after working alongside chief executive officer Jon Coleman.

When you work with someone for more than 20 years, you should learn a lot from that person. I’ve enjoyed such a relationship with Jon Coleman, from whom I’ve learned enough things to fill hundreds of blog posts. Today, however, I will focus on one of my favorite Jon Coleman statements, “Every song you play is a marketing decision.”

What does Jon mean by that? He means that the decisions about whether or not to play a song and how frequently to expose a song should be driven by a lot more than how appealing that song is to your station’s listeners. It’s why I believe the often-stated mantra of “play the hits” fails to do justice to the complex decision-making process that highly strategic radio programmers employ when it comes to selecting and scheduling music. Radio stations shouldn’t simply “play the hits,” they should play the right hits.

To be right for your station, a song should absolutely be popular among and familiar to your target audience. It should also, however, reinforce the brand essence of your station or at least the essence of the brand you’re trying to build. For example, many listeners in the target audience of a contemporary Hip Hop station may love to listen to R&B throwbacks on occasion, but if the station plays—for example—“Come & Talk To Me” by Jodeci, will it cloud its audience’s understanding of what the station is all about? Similarly, if a Hot AC station has built its brand on “picking you up and making you feel good,” will exposure of too many downtempo ballads in its music mix undermine why its listeners use the station in the first place?

This does not mean that stations should never defy audience expectations. However, the degree to which you do this and how far you stray from what your brand stands for should be guided by the strength of your music position. If your station’s music position is strong, you have more leeway to stick your neck out on a popular song. If your music position is still a work-in-progress, it’s vitally important to stick to songs that will help you develop the brand essence you seek.

The songs you choose to play shouldn’t be on your station just because your listeners like them. They make a statement; they tell the audience—along with all of the positioning and imaging efforts you employ—what your station is all about and what it stands for. The next time you’re implementing music testing results and struggling with the decision about whether to play a title that tests well but doesn’t “feel right,” think about it like a marketer. Forget “play the hits”; instead, channel your inner Jon Coleman and keep in mind that “every song you play is a marketing decision.”