What's It Going To Take...?

[pave]

No. No. We can't hang 'em - high or otherwise. We have to convert them - soiled heretics though they may be.

The other challenge is in how we, so to speak - "Bring 'em to Jeezus." I mean, somebody still has to sign the cheques!

[pave]

Here's a re-frame that might be useful in the gradual, ongoing appreciation of the value of considering these two, already offered, primary points of Radio communicating:

One of the goals or well-formed Outcomes for applying these principles and the many others which have gone unmentioned is: avoiding seeming to be attempting the impossible task of being personal - as it pertains to a single listener... while gaining the extremely valuable perception (on the listener's part) of being personable - an individual to whom it would be worth listening!

Astute readers/posters may appreciate that distinction and its cumulative value to themselves and their employers very quickly.

[pave]

Guess it's about time for another little, linguistic nugget -- this one, also in use as a street and broadcast tradition, as a particularly unchallenged element in broadcast, as pervasive as any other element of our spoken and written language and.... utterly counter productive!

It has to do with the inappropriate use of the Negative Command. Specifically, the word "don't". (We have already discussed the dangers of making any demands for behaviour and the following only compounds the issue.)

As speakers/communicators, we assume that our use of the word "don't" is easily understood and is responded to accurately.

While there is a much longer explanation of the mental process that people go through to understand any communication of negation, perhaps a few examples might suffice for now.

A series of broadcast, negative commands would include: "Don't miss it.", "Don't delay.", "Don't wait." and others.

Let me leave those alone for a moment and offer a few different examples. If one person says to another: "Don't think of the colour 'blue'." what must the listener do in their own skulls in order to understand the comment?

If someone says "Don't touch the bunny's fur." again, what must a listener process - internally - in order to understand the sentence?

If someone hears "Don't drink and drive." or "Don't worry about it." or "Don't notice the smiley icon at the end of this post, right now....... what happens?

Astute and studly readers will have already noticed: what happens is that readers/listeners go through a mental process of experiencing the exact opposite of what was in the statement -- before they add the negative and re-process that.

One can speculate, again, on the cumulative impact on an audience as a station or a Talent continuously uses this as an element in their communications.

So... Don't touch that dial!

[glaherty]

Don't stop posting this stuff.

[Cliff Bashly Kinkade]

<<Applauds>>
A 9.9!

[Destro]

hmmm... so I wanna say, "Stay Sober and Drive!"

yeah, actually that sounds pretty positive.

[Mike Cleaver]

We used to call that "playing mother."
Telling people what not to do or what to do.
"It's going to be cold out today so make sure you dress warmly."
"Don't forget your umbrella because it's going to rain."
A lot of radio chatter was simply blather.
Maybe jockless stations are the solution.

[pave]

Maybe jockless stations are the solution.

It's okay, Mike. Pave's got your back.

The future of Radio is about finding and developing marvelous Personalities who are also learning to become precise communicators.

A noble quest... yes?

[pave]

In an "Alberta" thread elsewhere on the forum, "Welcome UP 99.3 FM", jon posted a photo of Rawlco's positioning statements for their Edmonton bus ads.

Considering one of the discussions of this thread, the Demands for Behaviours here are quite stark and obvious.
I'm suggesting that a legitimate, reasonable response from a potential audience-member to those demands to: "Feel Good!" and, "Turn it UP!" could be: "....and who are you to tell me how to feel and what to do..... arsehole!?"

This realisation could be a bit of a jolt for management, especially when one considers the good intentions of the Marketing and Advertising Departments - and the inserted invoices that followed the presentations.

So, here's a freebie for Rawlco - just because I did have many fine times working with that crew:

The more appropriate, efficient, effective, longer-lasting and more acceptable-to-the-audience positioners would be:
"Feelin' Good!" and, "Turnin' It UP!"

With these statements, the station-people are advertising and taking responsibility for their own behaviours. Plus, the invitation for others to participate is implicit, as well.

Ta-Daaa! We have a WINNER! Yowser, yowser!

(And, P.S. I have never declined a bonus cheque.)

[pave]

So far, no cheques from Gord or Doug. Maybe I'll wait by the phone instead.

Meanwhile, I wonder if some readers have already picked up on the similarities of "Feelin' Good" and "Turnin' it UP" as being in the same communicative category as the wildly successful Jack-FM positioner: "Playing What We Want" in that the station advertises its own position - it's own behaviours and... leaves any listener-response and/or interpretation as a Choice Item.

This is a distinction that Radio communicators, advertisers and their agencies have been missing since Christ was a corporal. And yet, the evidence for making adjustments is pervasive and quite compelling.

Nobody really wants to be told what to do, particularly by people and institutions (Radio stations) who may already have limited credibility with us and, as listeners - absolutely zero authority over us.

I mention this as one indication that alternatives to avoiding making Demands For Behaviours do exist.

There are others.

[pave]

Earlier in this thread, a poster made a comment about this material being too subtle to make any difference in the audience experience - that nobody would notice or care.

The poster was quite accurate about a portion. The audience does not notice. Hell, I was pulling this stuff off forever and was never challenged on any of it.

Ratings and audience-response, however, was through the roof.

Now, I wasn't planning on releasing the following as it falls into the category of: Really, Really Subtle Stuff, but as it does pertain to those two, reworked and wunnerful positioners for Rawlco, I am somewhat obliged to finish the premise.

The offered positioners are: "Feelin' Good" and "Turnin' it UP".

A distinction to notice is in the use of the Progressive Tense of the verbs. This is done by adding the "ing" to the verb.

The linguistic explanation is that, by doing so, a verb that describes an event is transformed into a verb that describes a process. In other words: this is a linguistic technique that takes something that is static and turns it into something that is active.

Here's another, perhaps better example: A reader can participate in this little exercise by saying to themselves, "I was on a vacation." and notice the visual that is generated for that memory. Then, say it to themselves this way: "I was vacationing." and notice the visuals generated by that sentence.

Typically, a person will be able to make the following distinction: The first internal visual tends to be a static, still image while the second sentence generates a motion image.

As we are in the business of influencing thoughts, feelings and behaviours, the second version is far more useful in motivating a listener to action.

Subtle and powerful.

[pave]

While I hear some attempts at "creative" from The Creative Departments - and some very clever offerings at that from time-to-time, my argument remains that the bodies of the copy are still third-rate.... and for all the reasons I have posted here.

It's almost dead-on accurate to say that a spot I'll voice tomorrow will have exactly the same structure as a spot I voiced in 1964. The only exception being the placement of the decimal in the price-point.

Some have made the the comment that Language is the most complex technology ever developed. While there may be an argument there, I can still appreciate the statement -- given all the incredible rules, cultural distinctions, dialects, slang and innumerable vocal nuances we are intuitively responding to and delivering everywhere on a regular basis.

Everywhere, that is, except on the Radio.

The self-applied (by Radio) limitations on on-air speakers have taken these potential communicators and made of them - no more than deliverers of semantic drool.

And it shows in audience indifference. It shows again when Radio is the second-to-last choice as an advertising medium. (I'm told the last choice is hollering from the rooftops.)

This is insanity - a local medium that can focus and respond to a local audience and market almost in real time and it still ends up sucking hind tit. And this has been the case since Jeezus was cleaning out the dinosaur stables.

Is there not a need for considering some c'mmunicatin' here....?

[pave]

Just had a quick chat with one of the managers of a station here in The Big Smoke who, as we were discussing some of the communicative nuances of the business, stated: "Our announcers know they are talking to a close, personal friend every time they open the microphone."

So, I responded with: "How do they know that, specifically? What is their evidence? And howcum they tell this friend what they are supposed to do?"

She got cold and distant.... kinda like the door-to-door salesperson who begins to realise their pitch was weak and the door is about to close.

Some messages just aren't welcome, I'm guessin'.

Blaming the messenger is often the quickest if not the only way out.

[pave]

When I have presented this (above) material and the many other distinctions of broadcast communications to management and programmers over the years, there has been a consistency in their responses -- they act like they've just been pole-axed. And they immediately start lookin' for revenge against the perpetrator of their discomfort....muh-wah.

I am reminded of how many of us reacted to the news about what mommy & daddy had to do to make our little brothers or sisters appear or when we learned that the Santa we had grown to know, love and trust was no more than a marketing icon for Coca-Cola.

That I can appreciate as I came to be quite accepting of the former, but am still pining and bitter about the latter.

What does disappoint me, however, is that instead of considering the material as a fabulous learning opportunity that offers greater potentials for better, more acceptable communications and, as a result, extreme profit potentials, they recoil as if the cops were banging on the door.... with warrants.

Or, as one astute manager replied: "This would discount everything I have been taught and have come to accept as being real in Radio. So, you must be mistaken."

Perhaps ironically, on-air staff seem to be more open to methods for improving their skills. Not most.... but some.

The rest are still seeking evidence of sleigh-tracks and the hoof marks of eight, tiny reindeer.

[Jack Bennest]

As an alternative to the continuing monologue - you might consider writing a book or an article for the Broadcaster Mag