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 Radio Fortune Teller: Teen Radio to Return

I received two interesting calls in the last 24 hours - from 'kingpins' at high levels at two of the biggest advertising agencies in the land. They wanted to apologize.

Apologies from such lofty men and women who control so much of the advertising dollar in the U.S. are hard to come by, so I promised that comments I may use in my blog or in research we do at Bridge Ratings would be anonymous.

One of biggest - and quietest - radio industry issues to come out of the last ten years has been the theory that one key reason radio is experiencing such attrition from teens and young adults is the perfect storm that was created as technology eclipsed radio's lack of compelling youth radio content. The logic goes that if radio had been a bit more aggressive with radio programming geared to 13-24 year olds over the last ten years, it is possible that radio time-spent-listening among this group would not have fallen so sharply.

But, the chicken-and-the-egg fairytale dictates that radio would have gladly pursued such a course of teen programming if ad agencies would have supported it. No big ad dollars for teen radio - not likely money-hungry broadcasters would spend the resources required.

So, what about those calls from ad agency big-shots?

The calls (I just got another while writing this blog) were about the just-released report by TRU, a subsidiary of Research International, that revealed that teen spending in 2006 had reached $179 billion. That amounts to about $180 in disposable income per average teen per month. These media buyers have apparently awoken from a deep sleep (or deep denial) and were asking poignant questions about the possibility of a rebirth of youth radio and what would I recommend.

I pointed them to a Bridge Ratings' study we published earlier this year that glancingly mentioned some new youth radio formats that had tested extremely well. Not really a mystery since the radio formats were put together and researched with the help of a pretty smart group of average 13-21 year olds.

Formats of particular interest to these media buyers had working titles of "Youth News" and "Current Blend".

"Youth News" is fairly easy to figure out - only you wouldn't believe how good it sounded in testing. That's because this new youth information format was written and delivered by no one older than 24 and it had music throughout.

"Current Blend" is a bit more difficult to decipher. However, I can tell you that it's a music-focused radio format that is not currently heard anywhere on the planet on traditional, satellite or Internet radio!

So, I'm excited because there seems to be a glimmer of anticipation on the part of some of the smarter media buyers about radio formats that focus on 13-21 year olds.

It would seem that they have just been waiting for something like this to come along.

I asked these buyers if radio stations began popping up around the country with these two ideas (and more), would they send more dollars - many more dollars - their way, and these buyers gave a profound "yes"! response...."...but only if they get ratings..." they concluded.

I asked, "Where have you been placing youth ad dollars over the last few years?".

They replied, "CHR and Rock stations, primarily. But we know we're missing a tremendous number of these kids because many of them don't listen to those formats."

I have no doubt that traditional radio can regain some of the lost youth listening it has been faced with in recent years. And these formats will do amazingly well with both of Arbitron's methodologies (diary and People Meter).

Which broadcaster(s) have the courage to step up?

I'm waiting for your call. 818-291-6420.

Three Reasons

I must admit I'm stumped.

I've seen enough research over the last few months that has been predicting radio's woes for years. I saw a study originally released in 1999 that projected that 12-21 year olds of that year would be significantly alienated by traditional radio by 2005. While its specific time-spent-listening projections were off, the point was well-taken: terrestrial radio was not catering to this generation and by 2005 the 12-21 year olds of then (the 19-28 year olds of today), there would be striking changes to terrestrial radio because that generation would be losing interest.

'99 was the year of Napster, you'll recall, and though their P2P model eventually blew up, the damage had been done. The youth market was beginning to salivate over their power: getting what they wanted, when they wanted - on demand; they didn't need traditional radio.

I'm stumped because confirmation studies by this company (Bridge Ratings) and other highly respected radio research organizations during 2006 show conclusively that company operators, general managers and programmers have ignored the signs first seen 6-7 years ago and continue to shield their minds from the reality.

Are there any operators out there today who have the guts and conviction to try to win back these lost demographics?

"Why should we, Dave?" I hear you say. You think that the youth are gone and can't be salvaged so why try?

There are three potential reasons traditional radio has lost its way:

1. They are in denial
2. They don't know what to do about the attrition or are operationally unable to do anything
3. They don't care

Which do you think it is?

As we consider that another year has come and gone, the radio industry can look back on a year where, as a whole, radio stations began to rise to the challenge of all the new media surrounding it. The industry also now knows that it will be an up hill battle to slow the attrition that has seeped into Gen X and Gen Y; that these generations are not leaving because satellite radio is the answer or even that MySpace, Facebook or the iPod has changed communication forever.

The industry must accelerate its most aggressive tactics now - embrace as many new technologies as it can, reallocate its resources to support the understanding that it is a content business and that terrestrial radio is the best at creating content 24/7.

So, which of the three reasons listed above pinpoints the foundation of the lethargy the radio industry finds itself in?

Radio's 12-24 dilemma - Taking Less to Get More

It's always interesting to follow the trades in our business, especially when the stories are old news. I'm referring to the headlines this week about the Arbitron "fly-in" in which was discussed the fact that the radio industry has ignored the 12-24 year old audience to the point that the very future of the business is at stake because traditional radio has offered this generation nothing for over ten years. This isn't new news!

Our research has shown this age group, in general, doesn't feel like there's any compelling reason to listen to terrestrial radio.

Other researchers have flown this flag, yet the radio industry has just ignored these warnings. Why?!

It should be no secret that the answer lies in top lines, bottom lines and senior management's ability to once again prove their short-sightedness and place the almight dollar ahead of their own future.

Yet, I can't really blame them. The real blame sits with advertising agencies and radio clients who have been brainwashed to believe that 12-24 year olds don't have disposable income. Maybe they understand that this age group has tons of money ready to spend on everything from movies and music to clothing and electronics; these buyers of radio time have simply following the "lemming law" and inadvertantly led the radio industry down a path of self-destruction.

While running radio stations for CBS not so long ago, I recall the frustration we had walking out of buyers' offices when they had explained that this younger generation wasn't their core target for some of the radio clients they represent, yet they had no problem spending money on youth cable networks such as MTV to promote movies, for example. The buyers just couldn't see the same relationship radio had with this active consumer group and so they wouldn't buy radio.

So, over the years, management at traditional radio followed the money and did not develop programming and personalities that would compel this generation of 12-24 year olds to stay glued to their radios like previous generations. Their rationale was, " if we can't get buyer support in 12-24's, we'll go where the money is: the 25-54 family reunion demo." Obviously, radio is a business and businesses need to make profit. But radio's always been in the business of making money and for some reason the industry has ignored the concept that it needs to develop future audiences.

Consolidation led to ownership concentration which led to the concept of cost savings and the dream of leveraging audiences on multiple stations for increased revenue. In other words, greed blinded an industry that couldn't see it had a future. Wall Street forced traditional radio to focus so much on this quarter, this month - even this week's sales, that it forgot its future.

In the words of humorist Kin Hubbard, "the hardest thing is to take less when you can get more," and traditional radio hasn't worked hard enough to take less.