A good story

Most all of us like a good story. A witty aside. Perhaps an anecdote that provides a little insight. The problem arises when we confuse personal opinion with fact.

I suppose it is human nature to take a firmly held belief and extrapolate so that it becomes something that is generally acknowledged as being true. How often have you heard "everybody knows that ..."? Of course, when it comes to audience analysis this can be more than a little dangerous. Especially when programming, promotional or marketing strategies are developed on the basis of these flawed opinions. Instead of listening to the audience, what you're hearing is ego talking.

This article is prompted by a number of comments I have recently heard coming from people in the broadcast industry. Sweeping statements that draw conclusions based on very little. Below are a couple of examples along with my responses.

"(My daughter has) had an AM/FM portable (great fidelity) sitting on her shelf, unused for about 2 1/2 years. Why? 'Cause nobody listens to radio any more."

I'm not sure that a sample size of one is sufficient to refute the latest BBM statistics. As of Spring 2002, radio has a 94.0 per cent per sent reach with A18+ and per capita average weekly hours tuned of 21.2. Certainly, radio has to remain innovative, both in terms of content and technology, to hold the interest of younger listeners.

"Virtually everyone I know is happy with FM's fidelity. (Why) Create a new product or a patch for something that is obviously not broken ...?"

I would suggest that your research might be anecdotal. While the 45+ segment may be relatively satisfied with FM technology and the 55+ group satisfied with AM technology, the younger groups which represent the medium's future expect something much better in this era of DVD's and surround sound. There is every indication that they will continue to expect higher quality. A recent piece of research conducted by Digital Radio Rollout Inc. points out that 89.18 per cent of those canvassed cite the fidelity of digital radio as being a very important benefit to them. They also expect the additional data display and programming features that digital radio offers. This research will be supplemented with questions in the BBM RTS study which has a national sample size of 40,000.

These are fairly obvious examples. Still, there are a number of other somewhat more subtle issues which might deserve discussion. Over-reliance on contest line responses and "what we're hearing on the street" can be deceptive and lead to disappointment when the actual BBM ratings come out. Of course, becoming a slave to surveys is not the answer. Judgement is critical to success.

Consider the topic of "more music, less talk." Proprietary surveys conducted by a number of stations repeatedly come back with this request from listeners. "Less clutter" is another common item. If only things were that simple. It would appear that this is a fine balancing act. All-music channels have been repeatedly rejected out of hand by listeners. From satellite to cable television music services, the numbers are abysmal. Clearly, people want the human contact provided by on-air personalities.

In addition, listeners in Canada have repeatedly exhibited their preference for local content when out of market stations with comparable formats are available. Local traffic, weather, and news are obvious draws. No-interruption, all music sweeps have, in many instances failed to produce measurable benefits. In fact, if taken too far, they can rob a station of its personality. I can cite numerous examples where the "less talk" station has been trounced by a station with a similar format and more personality. Of course, too much talk in a music format can result in listeners switching stations.

As to clutter, I have seen instances where the PD insists on everything be kept free of "in association with" and others where everything including the kitchen sink comes with a sponsorship credit. What works is highly dependent upon the nature of the audience. As a whole, we live in a society indoctrinated with and surrounded by commercial endorsements. By choice, people wear Nike on their shirts and Budweiser on their ball caps. Just drive down the street of just about any city in Canada and check out the maze of billboards. Despite their protestations to the contrary when surveyed, there is very little concrete evidence that consumers are driven away by commercial sponsorships.

Over-reliance on music charts, surveys, call-out research and auditorium listening tests can also produce anaemic results. I have sat through presentations where everything from the playlist to the call letters have been exhaustively researched in order to guarantee success. Or at least until the next BBM book comes out. While research can provide invaluable direction, it is not a bible. Creative input and a bit of insight are required to make the whole thing work.

I'm often asked "which station or format do you like/listen to?" The truth is I listen to them all. I really do enjoy all of the formats (AC, CHR, Country, News/Talk, Sports, etc.) when they are programmed well. But the bottom line is......what I like personally is not important. As analysts, broadcasters or advertisers, our job is to hear what audiences are actually saying. Then add some judgement, some pro-activity and a bit of innovation.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.