What's It Going To Take...?

[pave]

Only The Few
“Patience” may be just another word to describe “Hurry up and wait.” as I am still expecting a cogent, reader-rebuttal on any of the (new to radio) points and principles I have been offering for some time in this space. There is a vacuum here that can only be filled by the input of concerned and astute radio owners and managers.

Meanwhile, these same individuals are obsessing over this or that gizmo or piece of software that might save their bacon. What is significant about all this published angst is that it demonstrates a realization on the part of radio’s leadership that its bacon really is in great peril and does, indeed, need saving. Reports of dwindling advertiser participation and unsatisfactory revenues demonstrate evidence enough that radio is certainly making no great surges forward.

It used to be said, “There are no secrets in radio.” This was because everything anybody wanted to know was available - blasting out of the “tireless wireless”. Granted, it took some intelligent and well-informed ears to discern the differences, but they were all out in the open.

Over the last few years, radio has been concentrating more on two aspects of the business – sales and gizmo-like-thingies. Most of the efforts have been on sales. That is, of course, a worthwhile and necessary process in which to be engaged. Unfortunately, the station services being flogged continue to be suspect in their quality and “iffy” in their effect.

A station can rearrange its play-list or, when panic takes root, change its entire format, but only so many times. Having to re-brand and, in some cases, re-staff, become expensive exercises in futility. I suspect radio’s leadership is hardly chomping at the bit in its eagerness to learn of the “differences that will make the communicative difference”. Some might believe there are no differences! The problems, then, are those of leadership not recognizing, not understanding, not appreciating or being fearful of the solutions when they are presented.

So far as I can tell, there are only three basic, choice elements to be addressed in order to make a radio station soar. These would be: The music format and cut selection, the capacity of the station to sell its goods on the street, and the ability of the radio station to communicate through its on-air, promotional and commercial components.

So, a reader from out of town or one involved in a different business altogether could also wonder why radio refuses to address its communicative opportunities and responsibilities. No radio manager has ever argued this point with anything other than bluster and vague denials.

I submit that radio’s managers, being generally smarter than the average bruin, have no room in their standard model of broadcast communications to allow for anything that doesn’t already fit the traditional model. Some senior managers with more than a couple of decades in the business could, with full sincerity and a straight face, say, “We used to have more talking on the air more often, but now we do it less. It’s not really important” They might figure they had just said something of substance, too.

The irony, certainly, is that that the area left unprepared and fallow is that which has the most potential. In fact, the model-of-communication is the last component that can be engaged. Concentrating only on sales and waiting for technologies has had the effect of scraping away any topsoil remaining – all the way down to bedrock.

I have to assume, given the utter lack of enthusiasm for even considering the proposition, that radio managers are unconvinced how re-addressing the communications model would have a powerful impact on audiences and/or advertisers. Another possible scenario is one in which managers have already ascertained that such a project would involve a significant amount of training, practice, coaching and consistent execution throughout the entire organization. This could be about a reticence to invest the time, energy and, yes – the funds.

Meanwhile, I do appreciate how the elements, strategies and communicative methodologies I have been promulgating these last few years are being read by folks who have (likely) never heard of such things. I would be overly enthusiastic were I to expect immediate acceptance and a willingness to get the project underway.

However, the bell continues to toll – and it is getting louder. Unless radio begins to undertake a process of re-tooling the spoken aspect of its communications, a number of very unpleasant consequences will ensue for many, many outfits.

By removing many of the spoken-word elements from on-air portions of a broadcast and severely suppressing others – including commercial production – radio is now delivering communications that are, for the most part, only base and banal. Do broadcasters really wonder what is happening to the appeal of their stations? Talent, because they have not been taught and because they are not allowed to communicate in order that they might have an impact on an audience, are in such tenuous positions, know they are but a short walk from Wally-Mart.

Further, I also appreciate how the greatest majority of station owners and management will disregard everything that has been written here – now and in the past – and will carry on as if there was no internal rot - or barbarians at the gates.

Then, there might also be a chance that some alert owner may take this matter seriously and make inquiries. To do so, might insure their organization will be able to discern the differences that make the difference; be the first on board to execute a uniquely powerful form of broadcasting and lay ownership to an exciting, prosperous future. This is a process for only the few – the very few.

[pave]

The Money Demo
In a recent Radio Ink article, Curt Krafft posited how the one demographic that is still under-served is the boomer market. I suggest the “oldies” stations have been missing much of their targets. Indeed, “boomers” represent control over a lot of available dollars. That dough can also be pried out of us, but only if we get treated properly.

I submit that “oldies” stations – a horrible moniker anyway - have limited their appeal by targeting an audience as one that would find music exclusively from that time frame (‘50’s-‘60’s) to be appealing. It’s as if programmers figure we all were struck deaf and doltish when we were turning 25. Not including the ‘70’s and ‘80’s would be akin to expecting us to, after the Beatles broke up, only be enjoying Tibetan gongs while slurping tsampa.

It should be pointed out: The very first boomers didn’t catch on to any popular music until the mid-‘50’s – earliest. Raging hormones and an appreciation for “the devil’s music” were still a few years away.

Aside from leaving Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” out of the mix – as a courtesy – choosing the cuts can be accomplished over beer and pizza during a weekend. It’s not that tough. The general strategy is: If it was some kind of a hit, it gets aired. And, if there is an argument over these or those particular cuts – play them anyway. Talent can go on-air and crap all over them. No one dies from an expanded playlist. Ignore the research. Meanwhile, well-chosen contemporary acts would be accepted, too.

Switching out the library is the easy part. Gaining some audience credibility for the station is another matter completely. A staff of on-air presenters who can actually relate and entertain the group is the essential element. This audience will not be patronized. Nor will we accept maudlin, banal, cheaped-out or minimalized performances for the sake of some, otherwise, groovy tunes. Tunes we can get anywhere.

The greatest programming mistake, as it relates to talent, would be to reinstitute the mechanical “robo-jock’ formatics that were in vogue during the ‘60’s and on. These were the formatics of “Top 40” radio. While an effective strategy at the time for collecting “kiddie cumes”, the approach would be ineffective and a superficial, patronizing insult if presented to (what has become) a far more sophisticated audience.

I remind readers how the later‘60’s were also times when “Underground FM” was beginning to make strong inroads. The presenters working those formats were not only allowed, they were encouraged and/or required to perform to a significantly more expanded level of content and personality. These guys were reaching parts of the same audience in question here.

Practically, this has been a necessary programming move. Strict formatics have become the only way to curtail talent that might, otherwise, be prime examples of the rambling, babbling on-air presenter. There are so many presenters who, if given their wings, would immediately be drooling gibberish over the airwaves. Perhaps the more important issue is that most contemporary on-air folks wouldn’t know what to do with increased air time.

Hence: The crippling bind. The vast majority of on-air presenters – even those who are intelligent, witty, clever, socially aware and personable human beings – are still woefully uneducated. They are unskilled as on-air communicators. Performers? Possibly. Communicators – not yet. Yes, I appreciate how that is a damning statement. Some might suggest it is also a mean or cruel conclusion – even condescending.

Still, I insist: Since radio has taken no steps whatsoever to improve the quality of its on-air and commercial presentations over the last number of decades, one could wonder if this conclusion could be anything but. The reality of suppressed on-air and commercial production talent almost guarantees a severely limited impact on an audience that deserves – and would respond to – an advanced, more effective and more appealing form of broadcast communications.

The multiple communicative solutions I have been providing would be applicable to any format. Presenting to an audience of “boomers”, however, comes with added responsibilities and opportunities! A consideration of the amount of available dollars within this category might suggest an expanded, learned approach to reaching, maintaining and influencing this audience would be well worth any investment.

Perhaps there are a number of formerly-talented presenters living in packing crates who might still be available and who might be somewhat appealing to this audience. I suggest, however, taking such a (relatively) easy approach would be an exercise in heavy, long-odds gambling and a recipe for staggering disasters. The cheaper, formatic, path-of-least-resistance leads to a precipice above the lava pools. Sacrifices of more talent to the volcano gods will not ward off significant failures.

Radio has and continues to refuse getting involved in any research or development to the communication models that have been in play for nearly forever. As a result, the industry is mired in muck of its own making – dependent on the (hopefully imminent) arrival of this or that gizmo. Instead of my penning these critiques while providing viable, already demonstrated solutions and alternatives, we really should be discussing how, specifically, we can get on with enhancing our position as the potential “premiere medium”.

As all this applies to getting involved in the boomer market, these steps would not only be advantageous, they become essential. Anything less and a station becomes just another outfit playing “oldies”. Unfortunately, this is the likely, default position.

[pave]

Rooted Or Stuck?
For years, my focus has been to cajole, trick, invite, browbeat or otherwise drag radio into a position where the people involved in on-air and commercial presentations can take their work to a whole new, more effective level. There have been a few roadblocks. They come in the form of ownership refusing to learn – and to take any action at all.

Some readers would agree there is an enormous amount of confusion among the ranks of ownership and management on this matter. I submit there is even confusion about the long-term status quo of radio communications – never mind anything new.

Sure, people will argue about anything, but some things, one might expect, would have been cleared up a long time ago – the nature, purpose and generation of spots being among them. The spots we produce and continuously air are akin to a massive, out-of-control rampage of zits on an, otherwise, semi-normal countenance.

I recently read an article submitted by Spike Santee, a senior, respected radioman. Among others, he made the following declarations: Radio doesn’t make people buy things. It doesn’t cause them to come into a store. Radio only informs.

He goes on to say that any deals, discounts or other time-sensitive specials would be lost on those who are not already “in the market”, and that something has to happen in an audience member’s experience that would move them into the category of a potential customer. A “triggering event”, he calls that.

My initial intuition was to pen a terse critique of Spike’s position. Fortunately, I had second thoughts. To my own chagrin and massive disappointment, I realized: Spike is right! Not because he is right-right, but because his is the description of how radio has been internally accepted – for decades. Indeed, radio has been presenting commercial content as if there were no other more effective, more compelling and more appealing commercial-producing strategies available than the ones already in play!

One issue with which I do take respectful exception, however, is in Spike’s suggestion for an AE to discover special distinctions about an advertiser that could trigger some audience recall down the road. I submit that, with the most rare of exceptions, advertisers do not enjoy such distinctions – none that would really make any worthwhile, penetrating or long-lasting impressions on an audience member.

There are the rare occasions when an advertiser’s deal or offer is so spectacular that immediate responses, visits and sales are assured. Some deals are so terrific that guys in hospital delivery rooms to “help” with the arrival would be excused if they immediately bailed to get in on such bargains. Even so, there would still be severe consequences on the home front.

When I was being fitted for my H/R hat, I was reminded of one of the principles of identification we were first taught. It can be phrased in the following question: What must a person or organization hold as true in order for the behavior(s) to be demonstrated? In the case of radio in general and Spike’s position in particular, one must believe that radio audiences operate mostly at a conscious and intellectual level. This has to be so because the vast majority of radio commercials are presented as if that were true. Radio commercials are heavy on content and extraordinarily light on exploiting any other human processes or attributes. Tuning audiences out is the norm.

However, if we were to consider superior, national TV campaigns, we would note the strategies are reversed, and that pure content represents only a fraction of the airtime given to these spots. Broadcast motivates. Print and the internet inform.

What owners and managers of radio have yet to learn or conclude is that radio – because it is another electronic medium – impacts more powerfully at the unconscious level and is more powerful as an emotional medium rather than an informational, intellectual or conscious-impacting deliverer of content.

Until those factors are considered and accepted, steps to exploit these new understandings will not be taken. Thus, Spike’s contentions are a fairly accurate representation of radio’s status quo. But, those same contentions do not hold up under scrutiny, or when alternate strategies are applied.

To steal a country lyric: Radio has “a long way to go and a short time to get there.” There are many items to pick up along the road, but there are no order forms. What is worse is that the manifest of the cargo now being hauled from county to county has been lost and nobody seems to remember what got locked up in the trailer. Whatever it is, it sure is stinkin’ to high heaven.

I would venture to say that most radio operators treat the on-air programming and the production of commercials as no more than mundane chores that require little attention and less thought. They couldn’t be more mistaken. And now is not the time to accept these matters as requiring little consideration and less effort to rectify.

Radio has, essentially, two main elements to present to audiences, those being music and the spoken word. Music has, for the most part, been pre-programmed from somewhere out of town. The spoken word portions have been utterly ignored while being suppressed and, in many cases, eliminated altogether.

Radio hanging on to its audience and advertiser bases is a task for which it is not prepared. Clinging to unfounded approaches to audiences and advertisers only drags a rotting cargo further down the line. And then there are those ugly zit-thingies, as well.

[pave]

Forced Flakes
The ongoing situation for women on the air at most radio stations is likely not one in which they ever planned to be participating. Those who are otherwise educated, witty, clever and intelligent are made to suffer. Maybe some thought they would be the exception. Maybe some are. But, overall, women working in radio are being forced to sound like lobotomized ditzes. Audiences can only conclude: They are flakes!

Senior managers are compelled to admit how this has been the case for decades. For many other executives and programmers who have less history in the business, there are no other options as this, for them, is the norm.

This criticism, in no way, takes the responsibility off the women who are still being lead in bondage to do their mid-day, afternoon or evening shifts. They accept their own suppression – just to be on the radio. It’s not worth it. Not to a professional. Because a year or five years from now, they will be no better off; they will have acquired no more useful skills and will have had no particular or greater impact on their audiences.

When I was involved in kart racing many years ago, event promoters would (reluctantly) provide a series of heats – strictly for the girls. “Powder Puff” racing was the standard moniker. Even then, racers and their crews recognized this as a somewhat demeaning and belittling situation. However, there weren’t enough women to form a gang – a suffragette racing force that could vote for change. They took their laps, had fun and were grateful.

While, of course, all of this also applies to the guys on the air, as well, it is the women who get the greatest pressure – to surrender their personalities and their innate or educated intelligence; travel the road of “light, tight and bright”; accept presenting as babble/bubble/bobble-heads and keep hoping their PD’s might be clandestinely dragged off by a rampaging clutch of banshees. This is unlikely, and it wouldn’t change anything.

Talent that have not or are not educating themselves on the basics and the more subtle nuances of vocal broadcast communications are participating in their own eventual or imminent demise. Expecting management to provide such an education is, based on history, a foolish proposition. Associate training or R&D of any kind has not come up on any manager’s OUIJA board in these past decades.

By whatever route they traveled to get there, most on-air performers cannot get past the skills demonstrated by the standard robo-jock. They can produce no more than the absolute minimum required to keep them on the air. When a programmer has little more to say to such talent beyond editing a few more seconds out of each set, they (the programmers) are among those who are fundamentalist, dogmatic control freaks. They have little more to offer. These are the programmers who deserve to become the primary targets for the aforementioned banshees.

Beyond the potentially influential and critically important aspects of the raw verbiage (words) being delivered, there are so many other aspects of vocal communications that are obviously not being considered by management or learned by the people on the air. The most obvious including: speed, tempo, volume, tonalities, pitch, planned pauses, emphasis and attitudinal nuances. I suggest this one paragraph be presented - anonymously for the sake of personal safety - to a programmer with the question: “What about all this!?”

Although there may not yet be enough evidence to convince anybody that radio is on tenterhooks and could be facing small and/or larger destructive processes and events in the future, readings of the tealeaves are still ominous. Our communicative product, by and large, is so banal, superficial and self destructive that continued audience support is hardly assured. Waning advertiser support is another matter, but it still has to do with the lack of audience-appeal and impact of the spots – most of which, as it turns out, contain actual speaking performances.

For a long period, I have had a suspicion that guys on the air enjoy a certain privilege – almost a free pass, so to speak. Radio has a tradition that guys be, at least manly, if not studly. The women, however, have been stuck into stronger stereotypes – subtle sexuality or fem-girlie. Neither of these positions, I suspect, generates much credibility or large followings. They are also very difficult to maintain – over time – and become thin, wearing and tiresome.

It is true that talent – if they are to generate a career in radio – will have to become far more skilled and efficient in their on-air communications. It is also understandable that they hesitate to push for their own improvement out of pure fear. Not only do they fear their employers, they fear sounding even worse in any attempt to improve their own abilities. I get that.

Meanwhile, blaming management for not undertaking the process of training on-air staff, while arguably legitimate, is hardly helpful to the individual. Besides, the act of “blaming” only renders the blamer as one frozen into inactivity. It is still incumbent on any would-be professional, broadcast communicator to make themselves responsible for their own education.

This doesn’t mean an astute, forward-thinking organization shouldn’t undertake the necessary R&D to determine if any of these points have value. Since none of that has been activated in any major radio organization, it is safe to speculate they are unaware of any of the propositions, or they have already written off the communicative elements of their business to be of little use. I posit, meanwhile, the communicative aspects of radio represent the most important elements! Tunes are no longer enough. The way talent is being utilized – especially the women – stands as grim testimony and can easily form a nasty indictment. No woman broadcaster wants to be forced into Flakedom.

[pave]

Dodging The Question
I was viewing an interview recently conducted by media-whiz, Mark Ramsay. It was with iHeart’s top, on-air talent-guy, Dennis Clark – a smart and affable fellow. Mark put the question to Dennis: “What is it that talent needs to know that they don’t know already?” I leaned in to get the response and was bolted back in my chair when Dennis did a side-slip and dodged the question!

When a question requesting specific information is put, one could reasonably expect to get back some real content. Didn’t happen. Instead, Mr. Clark launched into a series of comments about how the big stars like Bobby Bones, Ryan Seacrest and others are so well packed; they are available for input and discussions about presentation and the rest.

The original question, however, is still left begging for a useful response. Now, I grant there were many possibilities for explaining or justifying reasons for Dennis to decline addressing the question directly. However, as a third-rate mind reader, I can only speculate.

Reasons for dodging the question might include:
a.) Dennis was unwilling to divulge any information that might be proprietary to iHeart.
b.) He might not have enough information instantly at hand that could be articulated immediately and by rote in a real-time interview.
c.) Dennis might have construed the question as being about radio philosophies and attitudes. That would justify his responses as being, for the most part – generalities.
d.) He may believe that almost everything about on-air presentation is, ultimately, predicated on “personality” - with no other significant factors in play.

If the latter is the case – and I suspect it is – it would be reasonable to speculate: The same position is also held by almost all other senior managers who are dealing with talent. Practically, the declaration is, “There is nothing in these areas left to learn and apply.” The reality, I submit, is: Communication skills are the most important of skills – more important than “personality” - and represent completely uncharted territory!

Later in the interview, there were some comments about podcasting being a source of talent for the future. I find this very difficult to accept – generally. I will allow there may be some raging performers working the podcast route, but the vast majority of them are blowing their brains out in some kinds of free-form, special-interest, niche-rambles that have little to do with the packaging of a contemporary, commercial radio program.

Any expectation that podcasters will be the future talent for the commercial radio, meat grinders strikes me as almost a plaintiff wail. Maybe talent will fall from the sky, pre-loaded with innate creativity, huge personalities, monster on-air communicative skills, maybe some schtick, social awareness, the ability to play well with others, self-discipline, a history of a limited number of felony arrests - and a willingness to work cheap.

Certainly, fabulous personalities will continue to be found or come forward of their own volition. But for the other 10,000 radio stations – slim pickin’s indeed. What used to be legitimate, small and medium market farm teams for the majors are now weaker, tenuous, superficial and shoddy knock-offs of their corporate bigger brothers.

Talent at these stations are not only missing the development of the personal, necessary communicative skills that would benefit them and their stations in the smaller markets; there is little likelihood they will be accessing any opportunities to make those improvements as they move on up the ladder, either. Hence, the weaknesses of the larger portion of talent working larger and major markets.

Meanwhile, in another piece, Mark was touting the advantages available to the talents who could successfully engage and generate support through social media. I reminded him that all the manipulations brought about by a talent that isn’t good enough to draw flies over the air first, are only spinning their wheels by jumping all over Facebook et al. Mark responded by reminding me how he had covered that base by presupposing the talent-in-question was already competent. I accept the chastisement.

I still maintain, however, those communicative competencies are not being demonstrated at thousands and thousands of radio stations. Rank and file talent have yet to be trained – never mind given the time and opportunities to learn and practice.

As a sidebar: All the time and effort it takes to maintain a useful presence on social media does take away the opportunities for show prep – that part of the effort that used to appear in the job descriptions. But, given that so little show prep is even required for most day parts, the issue is only being noted – cynically.

From out here – where the busses don’t run and the cabbies are fearful of traveling - it seems to me how radio can still be likened to a flotilla of large, medium and small boats – all rudderless. The whole fleet – owned by different corporate organizations - is being moved along as one, essentially, by the variances of prevailing breezes, squalls and storms. Other boats (media) come churning past on a regular basis – with courses set. Staff communication skills, by the way, are from what solid rudders are made.

So, when any corporate managers are either unwilling or unable to respond to the direct question: “What is it that talent needs to know that they don’t know already?” with a suitcase full of content, one wonders if, on the specifics of broadcast communications, they might be packing empty sacks. Of all questions concerning radio, this one needs to be answered – in detail and right now. Dodging it, while expedient in the moment, is still horribly unsatisfactory and, I believe, destructive.

[pave]

Reluctant Radio
As radio is thrashing around in the throes of gizmo-envy – the latest being the Voltair episode – advertisers continue withholding their business and making moves to digital. That they would do so, I submit, is less about the efficacies of digital advertising and more about radio being unable to demonstrate its own viability to the degree required.

Over the decades, many advertisers have had as their media mix – some combination of print, radio and, if they could cough up the dollars – a smidge of local TV. Often, radio would be considered as no more than a “support” medium and would get the dregs and leftovers of an advertiser’s budget. Reps would be relieved to get what they could and it would be business that was fairly easy to write.

Can’t blame the reps for taking any path of little resistance. They were and are working at a disadvantage. The capacity to produce appealing and effective spots has, for the most part, become a lost art. It has also become a disregarded portion of the job description. (To be fair, there never was a time when spots were all terrific.) This is still the responsibility of programmers and whatever creative talent might be wandering the halls of the stations – desperate for a peer or a colleague with whom they could interact.

While harsh, I maintain: Even what creative talent that does remain has yet to be educated in the ways and means of generating appealing, effective advertising. Further, this criticism also applies to the on-air talent – whether performed “live” by an actual presenter, V/T’d, or supplied, part time, by a pizza-delivery guy.

Although I attract slanderous retorts and accusations by saying so, I still have great difficulty in understanding how owners and management can listen to their own (and other’s) stations without cringing – in disappointment, desperation and shame. How horrible, I wonder, do these outfits have to be before someone with influence recognizes what extraordinarily shoddy outfits they are running. Some may not even care.

I have few qualms about confessing my own frustration, either. I think I have a pretty good idea of what a mathematics teacher experiences when the classroom is filled with chowder-heads who have already determined that fingers & toes are enough to get along. All of this is going on, by the way, while rocket-surgeons are eagerly being educated in the class down the hall.

Given the utter lack of R&D undertaken by huge corporate radio entities and all the way down to mom & pop clusters or single sticks, the proposition is already secure: “The ‘yays’ have it. The House affirms that radio is pervasively reluctant to improve its primary products and services!” And that, dear, astute readers, is an indictment.

The irony is in that the solutions are all fairly straight-up – no fuzzy, sparking technologies, no woo-woo and no need to get the staff to dump their religious beliefs and take up the worship of RA. All that is required is the recognition on the part of ownership and/or senior management that radio’s communications model is fundamentally flawed in a number of areas; to consider presented alternate strategies and to commit to an educative/training and practice regimen.

This has been a significant struggle. Like the (aforementioned) classroom chowder-heads, the greatest majority of radio’s so-called “leadership” has demonstrated a staunch unwillingness to even consider there might be some new (to them) findings and methodologies that would impact mightily on the industry.

Although the responsibility has been unclaimed… no…rejected – wholly and vigorously for decades - that responsibility remains: To generate products and services that are more appealing, more efficient, more influential and more profitable to both audiences and advertisers than at any time in radio’s history.

Radio’s communicative approach is flawed in a number of ways. The two primary and more fundamental flaws can be described as follows:
Radio operates as if it were a Direct Medium. As such, the toxic and destructive “one-to-one” presupposition is still being applied and thrives – in the minds of broadcasters – as an accepted, accurate presupposition. The argument against this criticism has always been that since each member of the audience is listening as an individual – the presupposition stands. This is the weakest of arguments or explanations as there is nothing in life that is not experienced - as a single individual! This distinction alone opens up so many useful communicative opportunities – once it is understood.

The second of radio’s primary, fundamental flaws is in our ongoing and ubiquitous habit – if not strategy – of making demands on our audiences. We approach as authorities – as if we had the right to tell anybody to do anything! We treat our audiences as submissive slugs – willing to take orders and obey every command. Audience members may not be articulating their annoyance or that they are being abused and insulted, but I guarantee that generations of listeners have grown weary of the approach. And that happened – a long time ago. Again, the criticism applies to both spots and on-air presentations.

Mark Ramsey’s recent question put to iHeart’s Dennis Clark: “What is it that talent needs to know that they don’t know already?” can only be dodged for so long, as Mr. Clark did. But then, anyone in radio who is reluctant to find out – won’t.

For my own part, I can spend the next couple of days expounding in detail on that very question. Owners and senior management, however, are still frozen into inactivity on the most important element of their business – the communications coming out of the box and into the minds of listeners. The evidence suggests very strongly they are even afraid to make enquiries. Of what they are fearful is, so far, beyond me. This is no time for deferring to old dogma, superstitious habits – or binding reluctance.

[Tom Jeffries]

Your continued thoughts on radio, and so well written, are much appreciated.

This week was a real winner. You nailed it - and with style.

Bravo.

[pave]

Thorn In The Paw
It’s a well known fable – Androcles and The Lion. A young slave comes upon a lion that has a thorn embedded in its paw. The lion’s agonizing growls and roars touch the young man’s heart and he gingerly approaches the lion; pulls out the thorn and relieves the beast of its pain. Androcles and the lion become fast, lifelong friends. Radio works otherwise.

Although this tale is a popular representation of the values of putting one’s self at great risk for unknown personal benefits, and only potential, worthwhile results for the second party, it has endured as a warm and fuzzy piece of philosophical fluff. The disregarded, practical reality is that the boy would approach the lion; reach for the thorn; be ripped to shreds and likely eaten alive. After all, wounded lions can’t hunt. And a free lunch is not to be ignored.

Meanwhile, radio works – to the extent that it can – in more of a real world environment. Further, I accept that radio does not perceive itself as a lion with a thorn in its collective paw. But I may as well stretch the analogy to the point where is could snap at any time.

In a recent article, noted media-guy, Mark Ramsey makes the point that what radio is missing is the presentation of the “Now”. Essentially, this is another, elegant way of expressing the “live & local” approach. While the “live & local” concept has been kicked around for so long without being applied universally, it is still only wounded and will quiver from time-to-time. There may be some hope, yet.

Even those stations who have gone back to “live” (not Memorexed) talent on the air still suffer from two major stumbling blocks: The talent is on the air so few times in an hour and are speaking so briefly, that an audience member tuning in is very unlikely to hear any of it. What is more likely is them hearing tunes or spots. What is even more injurious to radio and vexing to an audience member is that the talent has little of any real value to say, and are, to an alarming degree, incompetent at saying it. All of this makes “live & local” an incomplete strategy and an unfulfilling experience. Yet, the application of “live & local” remains a necessary strategy – if radio is to expect any significant improvements.

Now, I am willing to grant that many morning shows can get by, if not excel, at what they are presenting. It’s those poor devils who are operating as single, stand-alone performers who suffer the most. It is they who are left out to dry – twisting in the wind – with an unspecified, unidentified audience to whom they can direct their comments.

Meanwhile, respected programmer, Randy Lane, has been subjecting himself to the vagaries and abuses of V/O classes. One might think that such classes would be of great value – and they are – but only to the degree that the information and new skills are applicable in the radio or ad agency worlds.

Some of the considerations and questions Randy was asked to consider are the (copied and pasted) following:
WHO...are you talking to? Visualize one person you know who could connect to the copy and share with them.
WHAT...are you really selling? Don't sell the product. Aid, inform, provide a solution, and convince that one person you're visualizing about a way of seeing things.
WHEN...is this conversation taking place? Early in the morning, after a long day at work, or at midnight when romance might happen, etc.
WHERE...are you having this conversation? Outside the gym, in an office, over the kitchen table, etc.
WHY...are you having this conversation? To enlighten, to seduce, to reach a decision, etc.

Now, I am in agreement – being a V/O presenter, as well – that these are all viable and significant considerations. What I do not appreciate is: In what real-world, radio-context do they apply or have any value!? They are of no use in the context of delivering over 95% of the radio spots being written and produced. Even the milquetoast attempts at producing a “slice of life” spot is met with overwhelming demands for content copy.

(Bob) You know, Mary. I was thinking we need to replace our windows.
(Mary) I was thinking the same thing, Bob!
(Bob) Let’s go down to Arnie’s Windows, Doors and Drain Cleaners. I hear they have great deals on all our window needs.
(Mary) Yes. I have their flyer right here. Be a sweety, Bob. Chloroform the kiddies and we’ll get right down to Arnie’s Windows, Doors and Drain Cleaners.
(Bob) We better get down there now because the sale is over at 6 tonight.

I don’t have to add satire or ridicule to the (above) example as every reader of this piece does, in fact, get it. We can all agree that anyone who spoke this way in real life would get poked with a fork and told to “snap out of it”. But, somehow, in radio, it is not only acceptable, but is an example of the status quo.

I confess to being a V/O-strumpet myself. Again, almost 95% of the spots I read are poorly written and so content-heavy as to make any of the concepts to which Randy is being introduced examples of far-flung and unattainable V/O fantasies.

Indeed, radio has a thorn in its paw. History demonstrates that, to alleviate the pain, radio has been chewing its own leg off. While this is hardly a useful strategy, the pain has, seemingly, made of it a viable alternative. Woe, then, to those who would approach with the intention, like Androcles, of alleviating the suffering. Pain and rage make for a terrifying and dangerous state. Radio is experiencing both.

[pave]

Radio’s Free Ride
Commercial radio has had a free ride for over half a century. Radio was, once, a unique and exclusive medium. Not only a free ride, radio has also enjoyed free range for most of that time – little or no competition for what it produced. That radio has worked its way into a hole of sameness can be demonstrated by the clutching of ratings in most markets.

A radio station in larger markets can celebrate and benefit from, say, a one percent increase in ratings, and that says more about the similarities of the stations in the market than it does about any strategic executions of the winner-of-the-day. Rarely is a station so unique and appealing that it can “own” a market.

I think it is safe to conclude that radio no longer enjoys “free range”. However, most stations are still clinging to the “free ride”. Evidence of that would be the realization that almost everything is still outsourced.
Technology – outsourced.
Music – outsourced.
Sales – outsourced. Most are brought in from other businesses.
Programming – particularly with corporate outfits – outsourced.
Promotions – outsourced and of the cookie-cutter, copycat variety.
News – outsourced and anemic in that it is mostly in the “rip, read & re-read” category.
National and regional commercial content – outsourced from agencies.
Content – outsourced and from everywhere.
Shows – syndicated, V/T’ed or (essentially) pre-scripted. Outsourced.

All of the (above) categories, one might expect, will not be undergoing any adjustments – never mind significant changes – any time soon. The traditional acceptance of these dogmatic methodologies of doing business is secure, and has become carved on granite tablets. Only two have even a ghost of a chance of coming under scrutiny and consideration for improvements: Local, “live” on-air talent and the writing and production of local commercials.

Even as there are only those two categories that are reasonably available for dynamic adjustments, radio has demonstrated no enthusiasm for the project - none, whatsoever. To the contrary, radio still weakly defends its positions on all of these matters with empty rhetoric. And it does so with vigor, sincerity and what seems a bizarre sense of certainty.

I feel the most sympathy for those “live” and V/T’ed on-air talents who have been forced, like abused zoo-animals, into the most restrictive of cages. There are thousands of these performers in the land who inhabit their claustrophobic pens with one delivery attitude: intense, one volume: loud, one tonality: flat-lined, and one speed: very, very fast.

While listening to these poor devils jump through their arbitrary hoops, I can easily speculate that: Unless they get all of what they were required to say out in less than 30 seconds, something that was previously implanted in their craniums would detonate. Another possibility is that they would have been trained to expect their wild-eyed PD’s to come barging though the control room door and tazer them - right in an eyeball. Audiences, I am satisfied, are recoiling in annoyance at these continuous, habitual, superficial and banal deliveries.

Accepting that all the categories are locked down anyway hardly allows for the generation of much enthusiasm for addressing the two remaining possible areas of consequence.

Nevertheless, the presentations of local talent and the creation of local commercials represent the most important elements that radio provides. Plus, since everything else is and will remain done deals, the local presentations are the only aspects of radio left that could be addressed!

The question then presents: Who is going to be doing the necessary teaching, training and ongoing coaching of on-air and creative staff? It is a valid consideration when a manager realizes there is no one in the organization that can shoulder such a burden and take on that responsibility.

Such a project has nothing to do with buffing turds to higher sheens. It is, rather, about becoming aware of and competent in whole other, superior presentation alternatives which are available to broadcast communicators. Many of these more effective communicative strategies, methodologies and systems were developed and put into practice in a varied number of enterprises decades ago. Radio, however, has not been one of them.

This is curiously tragic as it is music-radio that would benefit significantly. I submit this based on radio’s dependence on the spoken word, and particularly since everything else has been outsourced and bolted in anyway. Radio, meanwhile, seems to have realized this dependence; didn’t like the situation and has done everything it can to limit this dependence by suppressing as much of the spoken word presented on the air as it can.

My critics have been unable to articulate a defense of the status quo. Perhaps understandably, I am berated for being a kind of “negative Nancy”. They are mistaken. I argue for the need to make drastic improvements and for the vast potential of radio. However, the practical reality is: There are so few of us who can deliver the necessary materials, and those of us who can have to be as “outsourced” resources. As such, very few organizations have even a remote chance to benefit. All the others will continue on a tenuous, but rickety “free ride” – for as long as that lasts.

[pave]

Indistinguishable From Magic
Paying attention to feedback, while often uncomfortable and disconcerting, is a necessary part of any learning and teaching process. That feedback, sometimes, goes missing altogether can also be a sobering experience. I could argue that my assertion: Communications models – as applied by modern radio – are still a disaster. has fallen, for the most part, on unwilling and deaf ears.

Arthur C Clarke’s iconic statement of: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” is well known, accepted and applicable to some part of every person’s experience. I had to take a mic preamp out for servicing today because, when I crack the cover and peer inside – I am staring at pure, evil voodoo. Chilling.

Meanwhile, and perhaps to no one’s surprise, I accept the premise that “language” is the greatest, most important and most complex technology ever developed by human beings. It has become so complex that it is almost impossible for anyone to say or write what they mean – and have it understood exactly by another human being.

The jam about language is as follows: Language is so pervasive and all encompassing, people tend to think of its use as normal and ordinary process, and, as such - unworthy of any special attention. Most people operate with their language as a result of learning some basic rules of grammar in grade school, some little attention being paid to diction and responding to any feedback from the language they do learn and use on a regular basis and over time.

Presenters, both on-air and through local, commercial production are operating, pretty much, on those principles. They speak, essentially, the language they learned over time – and less. The exception might be those readers who accepted that, as they used to say in “Reader’s Digest”, “It pays to increase your word power”. Radio, however, has rejected every bit of that. Radio, instead, went the “dummy-down”-route and then compounded the error by suppressing even that by limiting the time presenters have on the air.

Even while pundits everywhere are hollering from the highest of vantage points that radio must make significant improvements in its base products and services, managers continue to ignore both the pleas and the warnings. Perhaps this is because management is out of earshot - hunkered down in basement bunkers. Either they are missing the calls-to-action or they are ignoring just about everybody. My intuition and experience suggests the latter.

I do wonder (occasionally) if the small cadre of radio’s leadership ever stops to consider what they might be missing – if they ever realize they have yet to find or figure out that “difference that makes the difference”. The evidence strongly suggests: Not yet. The evidence also suggests: They are not looking, either.

Meanwhile, the opening premise has been that language is a “technology”. Of course it is, especially when language is considered as software-for-the-brain. The next, reasonable conclusion would be (and this applies to any technology): A technology is only as useful as the skills of the operator applying it.

Radio presenters, by and large, have never been trained to take advantage of the potentials and possibilities that are embedded in the language. I suggest that most presenters are totally unaware there are any linguistic opportunities beyond those with which they arrived to their local microphones.

Radio has successfully suppressed, if not eliminated, the possibilities of inserting more powerful, appealing and influential elements of language from the deliveries by live presenters and copywriters. The materials to correct all that, however, are available – have been, in fact, for decades.

Radio reminds me of the gorillas in the mist in that, even as it (radio) beats its chest to bellow supremacy to all that would hear, it does so with hardly an inkling that its territory is being encroached upon and eliminated by other species.

To be fair, a number of managers are painfully aware of the linguistic weaknesses of the status quo, but are in no position to approach their 800-pound leaders and say, “Hey, Bruno. Can we have a word?” Too bad. But, I do understand. Nobody wants to be some ape’s lunch.

The approach to language I have been demonstrating all through this series of blogs did not fall out my own, personal butt. They have been tried, tested and found to be extremely effective in many areas including ad agencies, education, business communications and counseling environments – among others. My singular advantage is in that I have been able to test the techniques, strategies and methodologies in the radio environments – both on the air and in the creative departments. That I have experienced phenomenal results for decades from these applications is the reason I carry on.

An extraordinary and exciting opportunity, meanwhile, remains. Learning, understanding and applying the many “sleight of mouth” techniques can make for some exceptional radio magic - unlike anything ever heard before.

This rule-governed and systematic approach to delivering the spoken word on the radio can have a massive impact. An important aspect of all this comes from the realization that no actual “magic” is involved – and that no jocks were harmed in its development.

[pave]

The Cahoots Conspiracy
Over the years, radio has been ever thankful that automotive retailers continue to use the medium. Even as many dealerships are drawn to the siren wails of “digital” – mostly because it’s a happenin’ medium and they get “analytics” with their buys. What they fail to realize: The analytics only show how many may or may not be ignoring the ads.

In any given market, it is the cadre of auto dealerships that are collectively vying for sales – and aggressively so. As such they are compelled to compete with their fellows, and in all media. Radio has been grateful for the business. However, even that participation, which has, for decades, been as consistent as clockwork, is showing major signs of weakening.

How easy it has been to blame other, once-alien media, particularly “digital”. This would be because: Mostly, it’s true! The bleating, however, usually stops right there – dead in its tracks. After making the obvious statement, radio operators, for the most part, have gone silent and remained inactive. Luckily, a cushion of sorts has already been provided. As dealerships become more aware that their “digital” experiments are delivering shoddy returns, they are more likely to return to local radio. But again - no thanks to radio. I did say “lucky” and “lucky” counts.

Another factor about “digital” that dealership managers seem to be missing is that it takes an active participation of the receiver of their messages to complete the distribution. People have to pause whatever activity in which they are already engaged in order to “click through” the ads. As a passive medium, radio listeners can usually carry on with what they are doing while still receiving the messaging.

Indeed, there has been the call to “tell radio’s story” as it impacts on advertisers’ ROI. That continues. And it might be a terrific story – as soon as somebody figures out what that ROI might be. Is it 2-1, 5-1, 8-1or 12-1? I have read claims of 17-1! Woo Hoo! Sign me up! Besides, this is a story with so many “yah-buts” that any claim can be categorized as a fairy tale. Advertisers would be correct in asking: In what category is this (alleged) ROI provided? In what demographic? With what messaging, specifically. And, of course, at what cost and over how long?

I have been a proponent of drastic and necessary improvements in both on-air presentations and local radio commercial writing and production through the entirety of these blogs. I would be withholding if I did not acknowledge that the way car dealers have been using radio for decades has been effective – to a somewhat satisfactory degree. Radio, meanwhile, has also been using and exploiting dealerships – to an equally and somewhat satisfactory degree.

I claim there has been a collusion going on between dealerships and radio that is so long-standing that many of the participants are unaware of the dynamic. Here, then, is that dynamic: Dealerships have few expectations for advertising messaging that don’t go beyond “direct response” ads. Radio does not provide anything other than direct response ads. Oh sure, from time-to-time, one or the other may have a brain-fart and come up with a “creative” idea; production departments will fumble with it for awhile and then everybody gets all disappointed-like and reverts back to the same-ol’-same-ol’.

Radio provides – because dealerships insist on – two kinds of spots. There are the spectacularly annoying ”ram ’em-jam ‘em”, hard sell ads, and there are the equally annoying spots where the dealer principal or other staff member reads a laundry list of the latest deals while insisting what swell human beings are holed up in the belfries of the dealers’ castles. More and more of these individuals are women executives who are aglow in feminine sincerity. But the ads still come off as maudlin and patronizing – certainly not the intentions. These are the weakest attempts at “branding” which only result in credibility suffering. The ads are bad, by the way, because they are poorly imagined, disregard the listeners’ experience, are poorly written and delivered by amateurs – all that sincerity notwithstanding.

Radio sales executives, and everybody else back at the station, cringe when a dealership starts putting out calls for spots that are “out-of-the-box” or that will “rise above the clutter”. Copywriters, through harsh experience, go into such a project – reluctantly. They already know where the exercise is going. Those station managers that still have a semblance of a writing and production staff who could even consider such a task already know that designing and producing an “out-of-the-box” campaign is doomed. Why? Because the dealer is almost guaranteed to play it for the staff – one of which will say, “That doesn’t make me want to buy a car.” That’s when the dealer chickens out, the exercise collapses and everybody reverts back to “yell & sell”.

As a few critics have suggested: I may be writing this material only for my own benefit. Although I have provided more than enough specific material – in terms of strategies, systems and methodologies - to correct what ails commercial radio’s paltry attempts at effective communication, the likelihood that a whole industry is going to make the next, required leap is still - zilch.

Even as some major radio corporations begin to show signs of teetering, the principals are at a loss as to what to do next. I assume the slashing; burning and the elimination of necessary elements that make up a successful station have already been completed – leaving everybody exhausted. I could be mistaken. Stones can be made to bleed.
The demonstrated conspiracy between stations and auto dealerships only serves as one example where opportunities are being ignored. I am aware of no evidence that suggest this circumstance is about to change. Being in cahoots with each other does, however, preserve a somewhat nebulous status quo. There might be some comfort taken in that. Where, then, any improvement? For my part, I plan to continue. It is important.

[pave]

Needed: A Restraining Order
They just will not stop. “They” are the programmers, coaches and consultants who consistently parrot the laws of radio communications exactly as they were handed down from on high, and delivered over half a century ago – carved in stone. Who wrote the laws and lugged them down are unknowns. These laws are perfect and unassailable.

Programmers, I submit, have yet to challenge or even think these “laws” through. If there are some programmers who have actually considered them and found them to be dangerously flawed, I have yet to meet them. But then, with only two exceptions, I have yet to meet or work for a PD or consultant who didn’t spout pure radio dogma. This was always a chilling experience, particularly given all that sincerity, authority and certainty flying around the offices.

All challenges to the accepted liturgies, no matter how pithy, were met with harsh and cruel penalties. Some including being labeled: “not a team player”. Trite, superficial and obviously silly were these pronouncements, but they were also real enough and there were consequences. At some point – some earlier than others – we all learned to shut the hell up and bear the status quo. The unqualified, uneducated and incompetent PD’s, especially, were the ones least likely to be tested or engaged in conversation.

One might think that, over time, situations and environments such as those just mentioned would have been updated, moderated or otherwise improved over the years. To the contrary – the situation in radio has deteriorated. Indeed, almost all of the talent performing on the air or writing radio copy are completely oblivious to even the most basic of broadcast communication methods. Never mind the powerful and influential nuances that are available to the radio communicator – of which there are so many.

Meanwhile, the cadre of contemporary programmers continues to brazenly flaunt the edicts around. These offerings are being treated like they were sweet, succulent manna from above – rather than the stale, dried, non-nutritional crusts they really are. The real danger lies in that these crusts have long ago gone bad – and are now toxic. There are fewer audible groans around the stations when the Reading of The Laws takes place, but only because most of the talent has already been dismissed. Or, maybe they got sick and had to leave. They are, nevertheless, “no longer with us”.

As a reminder, allow me to re-state my position: Commercial radio stations have tremendous potentials. As of this writing, however, it is almost all unrealized! The status quo for the largest portion of the industry is one of malaise, uncertainty, struggle and frustration, combined with a series of vague (poorly defined) aspirations and a fear of other, encroaching media. Add to that an unwillingness to openly challenge this tawdry set of circumstances and we get an industry at a standstill.

Here is the crux of the matter. I am willing to wager (Canadian dollars, of course.) that almost every owner, manager, programmer or member of the talent-base will have difficulties in answering the following question in any detail: What, specifically, is radio’s core business responsibility? (I speculate many readers will have some trouble with that one – even given the long-term content of this blog as an up-front teaser.)

The answer is simplistic. Radio’s core, business responsibility is to develop and improve more effective ways of influencing audiences through the spoken word.

That’s it. Everything else is peripheral and pales by comparison. Failure to take up that challenge results in radio continuing to produce more irrelevant annoyances and white noise. Potentials will not be realized. Technologies and self-marketing will be somewhat useful, but only to the degree that radio can learn to deliver on its core responsibility.

I am, meanwhile, disappointed to predict: Radio, generally, will not take this up – not the responsibility or the challenge. Dogma does not allow for any of it. Control of The Radio Cult is more important than any potential improvements in its effects on audiences could ever demonstrate. This is, after all, the nature of cults. Participants are still being forced to drink the Kool-Aid by people who have already chugged the stuff by the gallons.

A number of RadioInk contributors of the last few weeks have, like they were liturgies - reiterated the two main edicts of universally accepted, holy radio dogma – “You” is the most important word, and “calls to action” (demands for behavior) are the most important ad elements. Applying either or both of those strategies continues to deliver stifled, toxic and tragic results. And still, nobody notices the hemlock in the Kool-Aid. This eliminates most possibilities of becoming aware of those limiting results – and in identifying how truly shoddy and injurious those strategies have been.

They just will not stop. Although I have always invited readers who disagree to submit cogent, articulate arguments against any of my already-demonstrated, alternative propositions, there have been no takers. This is an interesting and telling stat - given the high degree of intelligence and experience of most readers. One might expect there would be a long lineup of executives willing to step up and - take a few whacks at it.

At some point (sooner would be better) a stop has to be put to the nonsense. Somebody in a position of influence is going to have to make some enquiries, come to a conclusion and decide to take action. That may happen yet - in some organization or other. The rest of the industry will continue to stagger about – lost, confused, feeling “not so hot” and not knowing why. Maybe the courts can get involved. There is little point in continuing to take our Laws in tablet form. Meanwhile, as I think of it, the title of this piece is not very apt at all. A restraining order won’t likely do much good, either.

[pave]

Hail, Mary
Whether through some combination of strident thinking, meticulous planning, panic or just crazy happenstance, the elevation of Mary Berner to the CEO position at Cumulus hollers “Opportunity!” Further to the company accessing her already-demonstrated skills and attributes, I applaud the Cumulus decision for one other reason: Mary, I suspect, has yet to drink the Kool-Aid!

Her arriving sans the sack of rocks that is radio’s baggage – the dogma that is still pervasive throughout the industry – is a refreshing circumstance. This can provide unlimited occasions where clearer thought and considerations on her part can break through the fog and smog that has been radio’s standard operating environment for decades. One can’t even see a cumulus cloud - unless they are in a position of unobstructed visibility.

Granted, for some time, Cumulus headquarters may seem more like a MASH-unit than a place where the potentials of a radio station empire can start to be realized. The messy business of removing shrapnel, providing blood transfusions, saving limbs and binding wounds might, for a while, take one’s attention away from any benefits of future re-hab.

A short time ago, Mary declared that “execution” would become a priority – and in short order. I presume she was not referring to lining some careers up against a wall and - dispatching them with prejudice. Rather, I suspect she was alluding to the need to find out what doesn’t work and putting a stop to those activities. Finding out what does or could work and doing more of that, I am sure, is also somewhere in the mix.

I wonder, then, how Mary might respond to an invitation to consider what I offered as a challenge to radio station owners and managers. I suspected, correctly, almost every owner, manager and programmer would have difficulties in answering the following question in any detail: ”What, specifically, is radio’s core responsibility?”

Once again, the adjusted answer is: Radio’s core responsibility is to develop and improve on more appealing and effective ways and means of influencing audiences through the spoken word. The feedback I get is extraordinarily disappointing. It includes: Make more sales! Show more profits! Have more fun! Remember we’re in Show Business, and my least favorite: Provide a one-to-one experience!

None of that is going to matter much until “Core Responsibility #1” is taken on as an ongoing, company-wide mandate. This responsibility, by the way, is the only element over which we (radio-folks) could have had some control. Everything else, it could be argued, is delivered by outside sources. Since no one picked up the torch – this will be, as well. The ways we communicate with our audiences, both by our presenters and through locally-produced commercial content has never, I repeat: never been meaningfully addressed. A thoughtful, thorough and systematic examination has yet to be undertaken by anyone in ownership, management or programming. None of the aforementioned has had the interest, knowledge, experience or demonstrated success to establish credibility.

What is worse – much worse – is in how the usual suspects absolutely refuse to go through the exercise of examining how their stations might be critically flawed in these areas. This, I must presume, is based on two factors. 1.) Management does not believe any inquiries of this kind are warranted or useful as the status quo is locked in, and is about as good as it’s ever going to get. 2.) Managers are utterly unaware of what elements, specifically, need improving, and how to do it, specifically.

The research has already been done. The materials have been gathered and collated. The “real world” experiments have been run – with extraordinary results. That the strategies and methodologies to make the necessary, massive improvements in radio’s future “execution” are available a la carte has not registered with the rank and file of radio’s ownership and management. Detractors, while equally uninformed and noisy, have yet to articulate any reasonable arguments to the information that has been presented in this space – for a few years, now.

What with the spleens, livers, cranial parts and other radio-offal about to be hurled around and/or jettisoned at Cumulus offices taking up much of the focus, realizing that massive improvements, while absolutely required, will likely not be immediately registered as the most highly-valued responsibility.

While other media are taking chunks out of the radio carcass, it can still be opined that radio is doing more damage to itself than any alien predator could ever accomplish. As a communications medium, radio has not improved its presentations in any significant, meaningful or utilitarian ways for as long as even veterans can remember.

The significance of Mary Berner, with her unique background and skill-set, being engaged by such a large, corporate-radio entity cannot be overstated. What may be unfortunate, if not tragic, is that there is a very high degree of probability that she will never be exposed to this material – this particular “communications opportunity”. What is more likely is that even individuals in her own organization will attempt to keep these strategies, methodologies and potentials out of her awareness. It’s about gate keeping and hidden agendae – from both sides.

I do, however, offer hearty congratulations to the Cumulus board for its decision, and further best wishes to those employees who may be considering hanging on for further developments. Most of all, I offer personal respect and hope for her success to Ms. Berner. It may prove to be significant that she has not sipped of the over-rated, but still toxic Kool-Aid. An enthusiastic Hail Mary, indeed!

[pave]

Message To Mary
I have difficulty imagining how many people within the Cumulus radio organization are vying to get the eyes and ears – the attention - of new CEO, Mary Berner. That the organization is having troubles has not been challenged. A number of high profile individuals in the company, if not being held responsible for the past and current state of affairs, are certainly being blamed for them.

While a messy purging may be on a not-so-distant horizon, it might yet be a dynamic of ”too little – too late”. My hope, though, is for Mary to have the moxie, the access to useful resources and, most importantly, the time to make clean decisions that will benefit the company and the stakeholders.

As I mentioned in an earlier piece, the most important and necessary element that must be addressed – and I mean immediately for there to be any relief – is the horrible state of the radio communications being foisted on audiences and advertisers everywhere. This is not unique to Cumulus. This state is industry-wide and it has been a scourge – made up of shoddy, traditional communications practices that are incredibly damaging. Radio’s severe, self-imposed limitations assure the lack of more powerful and more influential broadcasting. Accepting the modern form of radio communications also guarantees none of the potentials and possibilities will be addressed or realized.

Mary may have already been made aware that radio – across the board – has gutted itself of almost all the necessary talent it would take for the industry to climb back out of the hole or step back from the abyss. That leaves no alternative but to begin with those who remain and to teach them, train them, educate them, coach them and support them until they are much more proficient and efficient as communicators. This must be accomplished before a new pack of untrained amateurs is turned loose on the airwaves.

There is no chance the industry in general is going to take any of these recommendations as anything to be undertaken immediately – if at all. Cumulus, however, is in a position where, practically, there are no other alternatives. Categorically: Dramatic improvement of any radio organization is possible today only by addressing radio’s core responsibility – the whats, whens and the hows, specifically, of using the language in more powerful and useful ways – of which there are many. “Magic” is, indeed, available.

If Mary’s mandate is to turn this thing around – if at all possible – then demanding more sales while cleaning up the personnel clutter will be unlikely to accomplish much – as big a show and spectacularly destructive as it will be – at least in the shorter term. I continue these comments with an (unconfirmed and uniformed) assumption that Mary will be rebuilding and not overseeing the parceling-off of stations. Perhaps a reconstruct will have to be done under protection. The questions still remain: Reconstructed by whom, specifically? Using what approaches and methodologies, specifically? Over how long a period and at what cost? Those are the major biggies. Unfortunately, radio in general and Cumulus today – given the status quo – are obliged to don full face masks; are given a large, heavy stick and are told there is a piñata around here somewhere. “Start swinging! Everybody else keep their heads up!” That piñatas might actually exist is a matter of hope and faith.

The industry has been lauding a default, fallback position for some time. It is spoken of as the “live & local” strategy. Yet, the industry has also been extremely reticent about implementing such a strategy, and I think I know why. On surface, the “live & local” seems so obvious and satisfying as a way to gain and retain audience. But, most thoughtful broadcasters also sense it would be a colossal waste of resources.

The following would, I suspect, provide new information for Mary. Given the access, I would invite Ms. Berner to gather a number of senior programming people together and to put the following questions to them, and to prepare herself for a massive onslaught of serious, senior dog-lips:
1. “Is radio a one-to-one medium?” They will all, regurgitate the radio dogma and exclaim that since each member of the audience hears the radio as an individual – it follows that radio is, indeed, a “one-to-one” medium. It isn’t. Fact is: Everything is life is experienced as a single individual. “Connections” are not even implied.
2. “Can anyone here identify that individual, specifically?” They can’t do it – obviously. They never will.
3. “As broadcasters, have we been given any right or an invitation from anyone in the audience to make demands on them for behaviours – to tell them what to do?” No! But, we do it anyway. Alternatives, it would seem, are unavailable.
4. “Do you programmers,” Mary could also inquire, “have any explanation or justification for the practice of writing and producing the same commercials as were written and produced over the last 4 decades – and longer?” She might also ask for a rationalization for the practice of having 90% of the locally produced ads fall into only the “direct response” category.

Although I am prepared to carry on for the rest of the day, Mary could stop right there – while dodging the stampede for the exits. Asking that series of terse questions would be a worthy exercise indeed. Sobering and revealing, as well.

Yes, and of course, “live & local” is a valid approach – an essential approach. Unfortunately, until the on-air presenters and writers in the creative departments who will be performing are re-trained in the strategies and methodologies of effective and appealing radio broadcasting, any resources thrown at implementing the “live & local” approach would be worse than owning any large boat – a hole in the water into which large amounts of money get thrown.

I suspect Mary will be avoiding all that.
She does, however - and I offer this with sincere respect - have a finite window-of-opportunity to be much more than a corporate "hatchet-lady".

[pave]

A Reframe And A Reality
A tip of the hat goes to Roy H. (The Wizard) Williams for performing another magnificent service for radio clients, account executives and creators of radio advertising. Roy clarified a process that desperately needed clarification – a “reframing”. By grabbing the overworked, yet misunderstood term: “branding”, and re-naming the phenomenon “bonding”, he opens a world of possibilities for radio and its clients.

“Branding” conjures up a number of possible understandings, implications and connotations. The original, generally accepted definition of “branding” had everything to do with blazing hot irons and tortured cattle. It also had to do with demonstrating ownership. It was a way of emblazoning the ranchers’ logos on unsuspecting steaks.

Advertisers would love to claim ownership of their markets – their customers. Come to think of it, so would radio stations. Running around threatening people with red-hot pokers is not the way to go about that. Nor will making demands of those customers be very helpful. However, sometimes the hot poker-approach can be somewhat effective. Maybe. Depends. Just as well, too, as that is how most of our on air content and spots are presented. “Bonding”, meanwhile, is about something else.

We are, indeed, dealing with the emotions of our customers and audiences when we approach them on the air. And we have some choices available in our considerations – not that we access them all that often. I should also point out as a reminder: When advertisers and/or customers claim that price points are what determines the sale, they are only partially correct. If the price point, the offer or the deal provided through the advertising does not generate an emotional response in the listener – No Sale.

While that connection makes for a fairly simple premise, it is not universally recognized or accepted as an advertising truism in local radio. Fancy, Big Time agencies know better. They depend on it as a functional, working reality. Accepting the premise allows for some other choices in writing, producing and marketing campaigns that are powerful and long lasting – the “bonding” campaigns. This is important for radio. But, ownerships are in the habit of delivering “direct response” ads. These are the “yell & sell” spots that have a one or two-week life span and which are near unlistenable.

These direct response ads have always been the easiest and cheapest commercials to produce. They are also the most off-putting, annoying and insulting spots available – and, to repeat myself from the last blog, ”they just will not stop!” The writing and vocal delivery of these ads haven’t changed in fifty years, and there is no evidence to suggest the approach is going to be adjusted either sooner or later. The need, alone, is not enough.

Expertly produced branding or “bonding” ads (I am still reeling from Roy’s magnificent reframing.) are incredibly powerful. Their impact is also longer lasting. However, to be effective, they have to run stretched out over more time; they have to be emotionally engaging and they have to gain and retain listener-attention. This also makes them much more difficult to write and produce. These requirements take most of the local radio station creative departments out of the scenario. Asking already-cratered creative departments for too much too often for too little constitutes cruel punishments.

Further, most advertisers (and, possibly, most stations’ staffs) have yet to appreciate the power and value (ROI) of “bonding” campaigns. How many auto dealerships are engaging radio stations or ad agencies to produce “bonding” campaigns for their businesses? Further, who still remembers when “institutional ads” were considered a waste of money? Little has changed.

Dealers attempt to sell vehicles directly and immediately. (Hear spot – Buy car.) They do that with a short barrage of “direct response” ads – without taking into account the thousands of potential customers who refuse to cross their thresholds – for whatever reasons. Part of that audience is reluctant because of some (tenuous) loyalty to other brands. Many audience members would rather get root canal work than enter any auto dealership. Indeed, it would be useful to calm those individuals, and to treat those affronts and injuries – before they become gaping, festering wounds.

Staying with auto dealerships: Only on an audience member who is 1.) Blindly loyal to the vehicle brand. 2.) Enjoys a satisfactory history with the dealership and/or, 3.) Is low fruit on the tree and already in the market for that brand, will the advertising have much worthy impact. The plethora of deals, rebates, financing options and other goodies are being replicated by all the other dealerships, as well. And they are all approaching audiences the same way. Yell & sell ads or having a representative of the dealership insisting on what swell human beings are hanging out at the lot, and how the staff is all a-tingle to “serve your needs” is the pervasive approach. That’s pretty shoddy and irritating advertising. But, that’s also all there is – pandering, maudlin sincerities notwithstanding.

Dealerships are reluctant to developing emotional relationships with potential customers. I’m convinced the possibility doesn’t even occur to most of them. For those few who are willing to entertain the idea, the first hurdle is about where they are going to get the creative produced. Most stations can’t deliver such material on a bet, never mind an ongoing basis. Ad agencies insert invoices that would terrify local dealers.

All that remains, then, is the default position – the “buy or die” spots. The good news is: Even those direct response ads can be written and delivered without the annoying and irritating elements that are now so pervasive. That will take some re-educating. Just eliminating clichés, while a worthy exercise, will not be enough. “Direct response” ads are here to stay. Making them more tolerable and more effective is on the table. Both direct response and branding/bonding ads have a place in the radio scenario. Too bad neither approach is being addressed or improved. But thanks anyway, Roy.