I recently picked up a copy of the New York Sun, New York City's youngest daily newspaper. It's a great read. Sharp writing, informative, and funny, in short everything a newspaper should be. It's the first time in a while I really enjoyed reading fishwrap. I don't know how the privately held Sun is performing, but I'd guess it's doing pretty good. The rest of the Newspaper industry is beset by problems. Some blame the internet, but the fact is is that the product isn't so great.
The same could be said for Radio, which is having it's own woes. There's no creativity in format, and so people would rather listen to their iPods. If DJs were actually finding new and great music for people to listen to, that would be a product that consumers would listen to and advertisers would pay for. Most of the time when I turn on the radio it sounds something like this "you're listening -istening-istening to 101, 101, 101, 101, (thunder crash sound effect) FM, rock (boulder sound effect) and roooooooollll for NEW NEW NEW NEW York CITY" (repeat 7 times over 2 minutes. That's flat out horrendous, and is an immediate channel changer. Who came up with the idea of bombarding your listeners with an annoying ad, with silly soundeffects? Who though that would attract listeners?
Mark Ramsey of Mercury Radio Research offers some similar common sense:
Two situations where I'm called on to do research with less than satisfactory results:
Situation 1: "Do listeners want more, shorter spot breaks or fewer, longer spot breaks?"
Why bother doing attitudinal research on this topic? This is not an issue for conjecture or opinion. It is all about behavior.
Forget research. Consider this: If you have a hundred listeners and they all have meters (I'm being forward-thinking here, but the logic works for diaries, too), and you play an hour of programming for them, what happens when you stop the music for a spot - even ONE spot?
Answer: Some folks tune away.
Sit in a car with a regular radio listener and watch what they do when the spot comes on.
No matter what the time, place, or mood, at least SOME folks will turn away when that spot comes on - and SOME are greater than NONE (yes, I'm assuming the average spot is more of a tune-out than the average song).
That necessarily implies that the fewer times you stop, the better off you'll be. The issue is not whether listeners want "20 in a row" more than "12 in a row" more than "45 minutes uninterrupted." This is not a popularity vote. The reality is that every time you stop, some listeners switch.
Nothing too extraordinary--if the product is better, then people will isten more. All of this, while being negative, actually makes me optimistic about these two beleagured industries. They still have a long time before becoming obsolete, and in the meantime if they can start selling good products again, they may yet turnaround. The media landscape is littered with these troubled companies. It may be a good time to start looking.
Comments