Home » radio » Page 7

Tag Archives: radio

Blog

Holiday Gratitude

Comment

Tuesdays With Coleman

For the final blog post of 2017, our three Senior Consultants—Warren Kurtzman, John Boyne, and Sam Milkman—sat down for a roundtable chat to reflect on some things they are thankful for this holiday season.

Coleman Insights Warren Kurtzman Jon Coleman John Boyne Sam Milkman

Executive VP/Senior Consultant Sam Milkman, Founder Jon Coleman, Executive VP/Senior Consultant John Boyne, and President/Senior Consultant Warren Kurtzman

SAM MILKMAN:

We have very special relationships with our clients who treat us like partners – and often like family. I’m grateful for our partnership with all of them.

WARREN KURTZMAN:

For all the missed connections in airports, late nights analyzing data…

SAM MILKMAN:

Wouldn’t trade it for anything.

JOHN BOYNE:

You mentioned the partnership, Sam. That really is what makes this rewarding, right? I feel grateful that so many clients consider us to be part of their strategic brain trusts. I love it when they reach out in between projects to get my outside perspective on things.

SAM MILKMAN:

That’s what it’s all about. Of course, I love rolling up our sleeves with our clients and helping them find a clearer path to success. When it all comes together – we follow a plan, invest in marketing an idea both on and off the air.

JOHN BOYNE:

Marketing is a great point. We’ll often have client calls to discuss marketing strategy. It helps to ensure that the message is aligned with the insights gleaned through research, but it’s also fun to bounce ideas around with others who are intimately familiar with “The Plan.” These conversations happen no matter what the level of marketing resources are at that time. Within the past couple of days, I’ve had a couple of clients calling to talk about their Q1 marketing message.

WARREN KURTZMAN:

I’m also grateful that we can tap into the brainpower of our founder, Jon Coleman. He’s seen so many scenarios, in virtually every format, and we’re not shy about asking his opinion when it comes to data interpretation and developing strategic plans. It’s pretty amazing to have the opportunity to learn from him every day.

SAM MILKMAN:

I’m grateful that consumers continue to rely on radio, even in the face of rapidly expanding entertainment options.

JOHN BOYNE:

We feel very fortunate that radio companies are investing in the growth of their product through research. There’s never a dull moment. There are always new things to learn, new ways to get better.

SAM MILKMAN:

And I’m grateful we’ve been able to invest as well!

WARREN KURTZMAN:

We’ll continue to invest in new technology and new ways to glean insights from consumers. We added three Associate Consultants to our team over the past year—Jessica Lichtenfeld, Meghan Campbell, and Jay Nachlis. As I’ve mentioned before, we’re bullish on the radio industry and are thrilled that we were able to add more brainpower to the team and another layer of service for our clients. On that note, I have a huge level of gratitude for everyone that works at Coleman Insights. We have a team of more than 20 individuals dedicated to providing our clients with the deepest insights and the highest levels of quality and service in the industry and I’m very proud of them.

SAM MILKMAN:

Coming back to our clients, I appreciate that we have the kind of clients who push us to question our assumptions. My father used to tell me, “No one has a monopoly on the truth.” He was trying to teach me that there isn’t just one way to see things, that you need to look at things from lots of different angles to find a solution. And I think our clients demand the same sort of intellectual vigor.

WARREN KURTZMAN:

Ultimately, that pushes us to challenge ourselves, and invest in new ways of doing things.

 

For January’s first blog, Warren, Jon and Sam will continue their discussion by sharing their thoughts on radio and research in 2018.

From everyone at Coleman Insights, have a festive and safe holiday season and  Happy New Year!

Blog

What’s My Brand Again?

Comment

Tuesdays With Coleman

Which radio station plays Classic Rock?

Which radio station plays Hip Hop and R&B?

Which radio station plays new hit music?

Chances are, you have a perceptual image in mind for one radio station that occupies each of these positions in your market.

It’s also true there’s likely more than one radio station in your market that plays Classic Rock, more than one that plays Hip Hop, and more than one that plays new hit music.

It is the one that is top of mind, the one you think of first, that builds brand ownership. In those moments when listeners choose a radio station to fill an instantaneous need, it is better to be top of mind.

Because more than one radio station plays these styles of music, it simply isn’t enough to play them. You must tell the audience, and you have to tell them often. That’s why simplicity is often the best way and slogans like “The Classic Rock Station”, “#1 for Hip Hop and R&B”, and “The Hit Music Station” just make sense. It’s what we call owning a Base Music Position on the Image Pyramid.

It takes a long time to build a brand. So when a change is made to a brand, it is even more paramount for the audience to be clearly informed of the change.

Let’s say my radio station plays mostly music from the 90s and 2000s, but research has identified an opportunity to play more 80s music. So, I significantly drop the percentage of 90s and 2000s music and inject a boost of 80s onto the station. Everyone says the station sounds great.

But did your audience really notice?

On a micro level, you may pick up some listening here and there and the audience may subliminally notice a change. But if you really want to get credit for the branding shift, just playing some extra 80s songs isn’t going to cut the mustard. You have to tell them. Over and over again.  Something like “The 80s Music Station” or “Nobody Plays more 80s” would make the change clear. Don’t forget, your station was playing music predominantly from the 90s and 2000s, so the audience’s top-of-mind perception of your brand is likely just that. You have to tell them you made the change to build the image you want.

What brand comes to mind when I say “baby food”?

Almost certainly the answer is Gerber. And Gerber still leads the U.S. market in baby food sales. But, like in other segments of the food industry, natural and organic disruptors have changed the game. Here’s a recent organic (pun intended) Google search of “Organic Baby Food”:

  • Earth’s Best
  • Plum Organics
  • Beech-Nut
  • Gerber

It shouldn’t be surprising that the brands that sound natural and organic lead the pack. What may come as a surprise is that Gerber has been making organic baby food since the 1990s, always used non-GMO fruits and vegetables in its purees, and has direct farmer relationships.

Yet it is Earth’s Best that says “No Genetically Engineered Ingredients” and Plum that put the word “organic” in its name.

Gerber has recognized the need to include the messaging in its marketing as part of a brand overhaul.

They’ve learned, even as the market leader, it isn’t enough to just do something. You must also tell your audience about it.

Over and over and over again.

Blog

Is News of the Dashboard Radio’s Death Greatly Exaggerated?

Comment

Tuesdays With Coleman

We are all struck by the speed at which technology is moving—in general, and particularly around the automobile. Some recent studies predict that the autonomous car will dominate roadways by the year 2030. Sooner than that, new digital dashboards featuring Apple Car Play and Android Auto will be in almost every car, offering much greater choice beyond traditional FM radio.

Is in-car listening, one of the last safe havens for radio, about to go the way of the hand-cranked window? While the threat to radio listening in vehicles is certainly real, there is also reason to believe that the world may not be moving as fast as some may think. No matter what the future holds, we believe the best course is to follow the consumer to understand what they really want. The consumer should be our guide to understanding the new rules of car dashboards—and in audio entertainment in general. Consumers might also want to read the Honda Vezel Singapore review at Vin’s Automotive to enlighten themselves on the latest news concerning cars.

Listening to consumers gives us reason for some optimism about FM radio’s importance in the car. First, the average Joe’s car does not look like the autonomous electrics we’ll see at the Consumer Electronics Show next month. Joe’s car is about 12 years old, with an FM radio, cassette deck and CD player. That was the basic layout of the entertainment system in most cars until the 2010 model year. That means many consumers will have an FM radio and a cassette player for at least another five or ten years.

Second, consumers have rejected new dashboards that lack a knob for the volume or the radio—even missing a CD player. Manufacturers have learned that consumer satisfaction drops significantly when they try to replace these basic features with newer technology. Honda, for example, backtracked and put a volume knob back into the design of its new cars after hearing complaints about their new dash concepts. Just because more streamline technology exists does not mean consumers want to learn to use it or be distracted by it at 70 mph.

Third, more choices in audio entertainment in the car is not necessarily a good thing—or a desirable one—from the consumers’ perspective. The masses do not always want boundless choice; it often overwhelms them. This is a phenomenon known as the tyranny of choice. We might think that more choices make people happier. After all, they have a greater likelihood of finding what they really want. The opposite is often true. Too many choices leads to greater misery!

Curation and somebody to tell the people what is good remains highly important. While we might say we want infinite choice, often times what we really want is somebody combing through the choices and making a few good recommendations.

None of this suggest we should put our heads in the sand or ignore the threats that surround us. Certainly our industry needs to fight hard on two fronts. First, we need to continue to build strong brands and great content. That’s the part of the success equation we control as an industry. Listeners who really love your product will continue to seek it out regardless of the distribution means, as long as we don’t make it hard for them to find us.

Second, our industry must continuously remind the auto industry that the consumer wants radio. The delivery technology may change, but the auto industry cannot afford to get too far ahead of itself, or the consumer, and we must remind them of that.

So long as the consumer is driving—literally and figuratively—let’s give them what they want—great radio and an easy way to hear it.

 

Blog

Seth Godin’s Lessons for Radio

Comment

In his opening keynote speech at Internet Summit in Raleigh, NC on November 15th, it only took author/marketing guru Seth Godin about five minutes before mentioning radio and the music industry.

According to Godin, 1972 was the perfect year for the music business. The reason? Scarcity of choice.

If you wanted to purchase an album, you had to go to a brick and mortar record store.

If you loaned someone your album, you generally needed to go buy another one.

If you wanted to discover new music, you had to hear it on a radio station.

The spokes of the music industry wheel all benefited from exclusivity – the record stores, radio stations and record companies.

Today, of course, you can download music and stream music from a seemingly endless potpourri of providers. You can watch videos for free on YouTube.

Like so many other industries, scarcity of choice has been replaced with abundance.

While Seth Godin doesn’t provide a prescription for the music industry, he does preach differentiation and content. Marketing conferences send out a parade of thought leaders all selling one thing in many different packages.

Stand out with content, content, content.

When Godin first self-published his 2003 breakthrough book, “Purple Cow: Transform Your Business by Being Remarkable”, the title was printed sideways and it was delivered in a milk carton if ordered by mail. Naturally, it was also very purple.

Radio’s been doing this kind of thing for a very long time.

Flashback to 1974 Los Angeles. Shadoe Stevens was hired to program KMET, an underperforming free-form rock station. Stevens differentiated the station by adding high energy production value and jingles, and placing billboards and stickers all around town with the logo in reverse and upside down. Sound familiar?

Godin provides great examples of companies coming up with unique ideas to differentiate. A lawn service that uses GPS to provide homeowners with exact pricing based on the size of their yard. Tesla calling their 0-60 in 2.2 seconds technology “Ludicrous Mode”.

The fact of the matter is, while everyone is currently trying to figure out content creation, radio professionals have been masters at this for decades. Radio stations are innovation labs for promotions, imaging, production, format creation and much more. Air talent comes up with fresh content for their stations on a daily basis.

If the path to differentiation is content, radio has the people that are up to the challenge.

What’s your milk carton?

Blog

What Made Mike & Mike Successful?

Comment

On Friday, November 17th, Mike & Mike aired their final broadcast on ESPN Radio. The show’s anchor, Mike Greenberg, will move on to host his own morning TV show in the spring. His co-host for the past 18 years, Mike Golic, will remain in place with a new partner, longtime ESPN staple Trey Wingo.

A run as long and remarkable as this deserves some reflection as to what made the show work.

Mike and the Mad Dog are rightfully credited with influencing the launch of sports talk radio stations and a generation of sports talk hosts during their time at WFAN/New York; however, both Mike Francesa and Chris “Mad Dog” Russo were career broadcasters when they were paired with each other.

While Mike and the Mad Dog could also be described as an “Odd Couple”, the debut of Mike & Mike on January 3, 2000 presented sports talk fans with an odd couple that offered completely different perspectives – a career broadcaster paired with a career athlete.

In fact, the show’s original tag line was “What makes them different makes them great”.

Greenberg and Golic understood their roles extremely well and always presented their points of view from their respective lenses. The plot of the show clearly highlighted these two points of view. They used these roles to create comedic and dramatic tension.

It’s important to consider how good Mike & Mike was considering the challenges it faced as a national show. While there is plenty of passion for sports around the country, sports fandom is almost always hyper local. If there was news about your team that wasn’t noteworthy on a national level, you wouldn’t hear about it on Mike & Mike. On the other hand, a local sports talk show could cover the story in great detail. Many of these local shows that focus on important local content about their local teams beat Mike & Mike in the ratings, but Mike & Mike did very well considering their national perspective.

The principles that guided Mike & Mike are ones that can be applied to any local or national show. These include:

  • Define a clear role for each character on the show
  • Clearly communicate these roles to every member of the show
  • Ensure differing viewpoints are presented in show discussions
  • Encourage the talent to focus on personal relationships, not just the news topics
  • Have the show look for interesting angles on stories that will appeal to casual listeners
  • Make diligent show planning a consistent habit
  • Always aim for high production value

Mike & Mike’s influence will be felt for some time to come. The lessons of what made it work will last forever.

 

Blog

Do Your Ads Fit Your Brand?

1 Comment

Tuesdays With Coleman

As we at Coleman Insights have learned from years of radio research, a station’s brand is vital to its success. Coleman Insights’ Brand Content MatrixSM illustrates our belief that the success of great radio stations is the result of two dimensions. First, the station’s brand strength—its top of mind awareness and perception. Second, its in-the-moment content strength—a function of how compelling the content is. The Brand Content Matrix shows the most successful radio stations marry high-quality content with a well-established brand.

Brand Content Matrix

The content we program should fit with the brand we’ve established or are trying to establish. For example, a Classic Rock station with a harder edge should consider whether playing Fleetwood Mac, even if it tests, fits the brand. The development of a station’s brand—and making sure the brand is considered in decisions from programming to marketing—plays a very important role in a station’s continued success.

The cable TV world, where I spent a good chunk of my career, understands this. However, a cable network, especially one with a carefully and well established brand, also concerns itself with the ads it airs. That is, if it wants to maintain its brand integrity with its audience, the brand’s objectives must be woven through advertising as well as content. Commercials have to make sense in a viewers’ experience or a viewer might, literally or figuratively, walk away. With the advent of minute-by-minute Nielsen measurement and new platforms for measuring viewer engagement, ad content fit has become part of the network brand equation. This is especially true for custom ad content, like sponsorships and integrations. Networks want to be sure that ad content flows with carefully selected programming content and doesn’t provide a misguided “jolt” that disrupts the viewing experience. Yet in radio, we don’t always take that approach.

In the radio world, we also talk about “fit”, but that addresses programming elements like music and personalities. It is rarely viewed in the context of whether advertising makes sense on a station. We don’t often concern ourselves with how well an ad integrates into the listener experience. After all, an ad is an ad, and stations need ads to survive, and people are used to hearing ads, so why make any changes?

PPM tells us that “in the moment” listenership diminishes during ad breaks (though, as we found in our 2011 and 2006 studies, not as much as the industry believes). When stations strive to provide their listeners with a seamless content-to-ad experience, they can cut down on this disengagement even further. Listeners shouldn’t get the aforementioned jolt when an ad break starts, cueing them to tune out either literally or figuratively. An advertisement won’t always sound exactly like a station’s regular programming, but if an ad makes sense within the framework of the station, it will likely maintain audience engagement while it plays. More engaged listening can lead to both a more engaged audience and better advertiser ROI.

The question, then, is how best to provide a listener with an experience that is as seamless as possible. One suggested method is through localization.

When a station’s hosts, who are already known quantities to their listeners, read ad copy that is customized for the station and its metro area, listeners connect it directly to the station’s content. The voices they hear are familiar, and listeners think of a station’s host as local. Therefore, the ads make geographic sense. Using a station’s talent is also great for business. Recent studies, like one from the USC Annenberg School of Communications and another commissioned by Cumulus Media, tell us that using familiar personalities in radio ads increases purchase consideration or purchase itself, and that familiar personalities influence listeners’ opinions.

Another method would be making sure the products advertised—and the style in which they’re advertised—make sense for a station’s brand. For example, a car dealership commercial featuring a country song might feel jarringly out of place on an Urban AC. You might not want a Motley Crue music bed under a spot on a Mainstream AC station, just as hearing John Legend could be confusing on an Active Rock outlet.  If your station is perceived as “family-friendly”, are there clients with edgy spot content you need to turn away or spots you should at least daypart? Is the production quality to the station’s standards or will it reflect poorly on the product?

Not every solution will work for every station. Programmers who are fortunate to have the advantage of research—especially perceptual research—can glean a better understanding of what their brand stands for. Understanding what your brand means to your audience and the broader marketplace can empower you to view the product from every angle. This level of strategic knowledge allows savvy programmers to consider every song and piece of content. Sharing these brand insights and working collaboratively with the sales leadership at the radio station can help ensure that your station’s listening experience continues to engage your audience even when your programming is on a break.

 

Blog

5 “Stranger Things” You Didn’t Know About Radio

Comment

In honor of the release of Stranger Things 2  on Netflix today, here are 5 “stranger things” you didn’t know about radio:

  1. Radio saved the Eiffel Tower from destruction. The Parisian government planned to disassemble the tower for scrap metal. To prove it could be used as a strategic utility, designer Alexandre-Gustave Eiffel built an antenna stop the tower and funded experiments with wireless telegraphy in 1898. Today, more than 100 antennae on the tower broadcast radio and TV signals around the world. *History.com (3/31/14) 
  2. More Americans 6+ listen to radio (93%) each week than watch TV (89%), use a smartphone (83%), PC (50%) or tablet (37%). *2017 Nielsen Audio Today (6/22/17)
  3. Nikola Tesla, not Marconi, invented the radio. As early as 1892, Nikola Tesla created a basic design for radio. However, Marconi claimed all the first patents. The U.S. Supreme Court declared Marconi’s patents invalid and awarded them to Tesla in 1943, six months after Tesla’s death. Marconi generally still gets the credit. *Radiobroadcaster.org (2/24/14)
  4. Marconi was the great-grandson of John Jameson, founder of Jameson Irish Whiskey. *Clifdenheritage.org (12/1/10)
  5. Officially, from 1922-1971 you could not listen to radio in the UK without having a license. The government wanted citizens to pay ten schillings to get a license. *Radiolicence.org.uk
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.