The Decade of Radio Cannibalism

What is the most interesting/startling/eye-opening thing I've learned this year about the radio business?

There are no leaders - only followers.

The conversion of a highly independent-thinking, proactive industry to a defensive, lack-of-self confidence one didn't happen overnight. It's been nine years in the making. Sort of like James Cameron's "Avatar", only this time it ain't pretty.

Up until 2000 when the Internet bubble burst, the radio industry was robust, creative and ballsy, i.e. it took on all 'comers' who wanted to threaten its very existence and it took each and every one on with gusto. It thrived in that environment and it made its members love their business that much more.

The bubble burst and there were no more $1000 spot rates from Internet start-ups.

9-11 halted everyone's business, but radio never recovered because around the same time Napster taught our kids that they didn't really need radio...

The Internet proliferated as high speed access surpassed the tipping point of 50% of households...

Internet radio, You Tube, Smartphones, subscription radio, technology and...

Arbitron's PPM. The last straw.

Audience measurement systems for any consumer product have always been a reflection of usage; no more-no less. Once delivered, it was up to the customer to interpret the data.

What changed with the introduction of Arbitron's PPM service?

The methodology influences the business.

PPM is arguably more accurate, yet it has its limitations just like the diary-system does.

It allows programmers and managers alike to dissect audience movement down to the minute and to over-react to changes in listening behavior. The cause of that change in listening is not measured, yet programmers can make assumptions which may not prove accurate.

The science of Arbitron's meter system has taken advantage of radio management's building inferiority complex by eliminating the 'long-tail' or product variety evident among radio's vast potential listening audience.

The most mass-appeal stations are the victors in PPM rated markets.

The stations that take the least risks to create exciting, compelling listening perform best in this metered world.

PPM has surgically removed radio's best traits: it's abilty to respond quickly to consumer trends and to offer entertainment faster than any other medium. This ability to read its audience from gut and sound research, kept interest in radio at high levels before technology brought new competition.

Perhaps the worst part of this is that the industry has been led by its nose into this quagmire without a fight. And now it has a ratings system which does not fully support its business potential.

If the motion picture industry followed this path, we would be presented with only the most bland, smallest common denominator movies. And while there's certainly a place for them, consumers would never have been exposed to such interesting films as "Momento", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" or "Requiem for a Dream" over the last decade.

And this secret sauce which the radio business held in high esteem is what is missing in today's newly competitive landscape.

A new study from Bridge Ratings suggests that radio is not dying on the vine it's just sharing usage with other media and tune-in is as high as ever.

This is the time for creativity, risk and reward. Results of this study show that radio consumers like the ease-of-use and the pervasiveness of over-the-air radio. In fact listeners of all ages are pulling for radio, and want it to be better, funnier, more stimulating.

Consumers are pulling for radio because they know it can do better.

The industry is ending a decade of cannibalism. We have seen the disease of "no confidence" coupled with "less courage" seasoned with a measurement system that doesn't support the creation and delivery of many potentially popular radio formats.

During times like these it is strength, courage and the ability to think independently that is needed.

Perhaps it is not too late to embrace those traits that brought the radio industry its greatest successes. There are options to Arbitron's meter methodology; options that would measure the totality of the interests of radio's consumer base.

For 2010, we look for a more positive landscape for all business to operate, and the radio business, specifically, has a chance to be reinvigorated.

Radio's New Music Fantasy

The recent headline "Google and MySpace will challenge radio’s music-discovery position," got me asking the question "What music-discovery position?"

In the years I have been analyzing consumer use of media, including broadcast radio, Internet and more recently smart phone behavior, radio has had the potential to capture the new music discovery crown.

Unfortunately, it never has lived up to this potential.






In 2007, Bridge Ratings conducted a series of deep studies of music consumers of all ages and, as you might suspect, found that 18-30 year olds were most interested in discovering new music though any means possible. In the category of where most of this discovery was occurring, broadcast radio followed peers and the Internet as the place to go to find great new music.

However, in focus groups to dig deeper, radio had the greatest potential of all three for new music discovery due to its primary benefits: ease of use, accessibility and the fact that radio is free.

Yet radio never took the initiative.

In the last two years I have discussed this notion of new music discovery with at least 100 radio programmers in the formats of Contemporary Hit Radio (CHR), Adult Alternative and Alternative.

Would it surprise you to know that none of them saw the wisdom of claiming the "new music" position in their markets by proactively promoting and playing new music by either established performers or undiscovered talent.

Radio's belief that it is the new music discovery destination is pure fantasy.

There's a fabulous on-line worldwide talent competition called "Fame Games" which boasts two million worldwide listeners; 70% listen in the U.S. alone. I have had an interest in this five-shows-a-week talent competition and thought it would suit American radio just fine.

"Fame Games" features unsigned artists of any cross-over genre competing for best track of the week and ultimately a major record contract.

This is a well-produced, fun feature that pits two songs against each other vying for the votes of listeners and the program's judges. So, I took it to U.S. radio.

American programmers won't go there.

Aggressively marketing one's radio station as the "place for new music discovery" would greatly bulk up a station's image if done properly and perhaps even draw young listeners back to a medium that is having its problems holding on to this important demographic.

So, when I read that Google or MySpace will challenge radio's music discovery position, or when I read the RAB's Jeff Haley's concern about how radio has to protect this turf, I have to shrug my shoulders.

As far as radio's listeners are concerned, there is no new music turf to protect.

Radio had the opportunity to claim this territory for itself at least two years ago when audiences told us that radio's convenience would make it the most likely place to go to discover new music.

It never took the opportunity and very well may find itself pushed out by new media which seems to take every opportunity to infringe on radio's weaknesses.

This all points to radio's biggest challenge: getting back to creating and presenting engrossing and compelling programming....for all ages.

The radio industry must build upon its rich history of being listener-focused.

In its confusion in recent years, radio has simply forgotten how to compete.

The Last Brand Standing

Choice is a good thing, right? Not so fast.

Having choice has its place, but the staggering array of consumer goods from which we must choose overwhelms the average consumer, and in a 2005 book psychology professor Barry Schwartz argues that that's not such a good thing.

In the book "The Paradox of Choice", Schwartz tells us that constantly being asked to make choices, even about the simplest things, forces us to "invest time, energy, and no small amount of self-doubt, and dread." There comes a point, he contends, at which choice becomes debilitating rather than liberating. Did I make the right choice? Can I ever make the right choice?

It would be easy to write off this book as merely an extended riff on that well-worn phrase "too much of a good thing," but that would be a mistake.

Part of the professor's point in the book is that rules and constraints in society help us make decisions and this is a good thing and should be embraced.

The book's concepts are easily applied to media consumption as well. Because of the growing number of choices we are presented with, consumers of media don't always have the time to look at all the information out there to make the best choice or to even consider all of the options. People expect certain decisions to be made for them.

The term "decision stress" has also been tossed around by marketers over the years and Professor Schwartz's concepts hinge on similar rationale that when faced with too many choices a consumer will often "short-circuit" with too much information overload and tend to decide on what to purchase or read or listen to using the easiest method.

In most cases brand is the balm that soothes decision stress.

And it is for this reason that those of us running media companies in 2007 should consider just how powerful our brand is - or should be.

In our recent studies of media consumption - especially in the Internet radio space - Bridge Ratings has discovered that with tens of thousands of Internet radio options, most average consumers of Internet radio will gravitate to a brand they are familiar with. In many cases they do this to reduce or eliminate the "decision stress".

We have seen new consumers interested in Internet radio go directly to AOL.com for their Internet radio experience without much thought about what else is out there. Why? It's a brand they know and it makes the process of deciding easier.

This process of "going to the brand" is more prevalent in media than in other consumer products and services. Why? Because in most cases, media is simply a utility, something that doesn't hold significant importance to our lives and like the light switch on the wall, we as consumers of media tend to "throw the switch" on whatever media we are consuming without much thought.

Of course, this is a generalized perspective. There are passionate consumers of media that give great thought to what they watch or listen to, but generally, we have found that the average consumer has too many decisions they need to make each day and any time the decision process can be eliminated or reduced, most consumers will take that road.

Certainly, deciding on which radio station to listen to doesn't hold the significance in consumers' lives that selection of which doctor should be seen or which food product will enrich health, and therein lies the most key of all of the factors leading to "decision stress". The hierarchy.

To make the process of decision easier, consumers have an internal mental product ladder upon which they have placed their favorite brands.

They go to a store looking for a product and, in most cases, when faced with too much choice, a consumer makes the easy choice - almost without thought - and goes for the brand they know.

If brand building has not been a part of your business strategy, it is time to invest time, energy and yes, even financial resources, into building, maintaining, supporting and/or strengthening your brand.

Because media consumption isn't getting any easier for the consumer. Whether you run a radio station, and Internet radio business or produce content for other digital and mobile media, your brand will be they key to unlocking consumer use and recall.

The easier you make it for the consumer to make that choice, the more likely they'll choose you.

2007: Content is Not King; Distribution is

Content was king for a while, but it's fallen to #2 on the hit parade of what's going to garner listeners, viewers or readers in the foreseeable future. Now distribution is king! It's not that content doesn't count; it's just that in 2006 distribution became more available to the masses thus surpassing content in importance.

We heard good news last week that year-end statistics reflect that traditional radio's on-line listening hit something of a tipping point this year with significant increases in listening to terrestrial radio's on-line streaming - and that's a good start.

But the public has access to all sorts of distribution. It could be the death of old time media if we don't get it right next year. Even my 89 year old mom is aware of new channels of distribution. THIS is the story. And it's magnified 100 fold for the youth generation that's losing interest in traditional radio as one of their distribution choices. Ever try to remember a dream when you wake up? You know how fleeting the memory of it is? That's what is happening to 12-21 year olds. They're slowly forgetting we even exist.

Get your brand, your best content & your most entertaining talent OUT THERE to the masses on as many channels of distribution as you can. It's distribution that will keep you competitive. What good does the best content in the world get you if that content can't be heard by the greatest potential audience. Guess what? Your 100kw transmitter alone can no longer compete! Today, the battleground is access to the public on as many distribution channels as possible. Traditional radio has a unique opportunity to spread its content. Let's not blow this one!

Traditional media and many new forms of digital distribution are not mutually exclusive either. Use them to power each other and expand your reach.

May your 2007 be your most exciting and successful yet.