AMT Show Rate

I received an email today from a client who was distraught.

The station conducted a library music test (AMT - auditorium music test) last night. The field service lined up 140 people who said they would show up. Only 70 did.

Clearly, something I thought was pretty much universally known, actually is not. Only 50% to 70% of the people who say they will show up actually will.

Usually, this is age dependent. In the 12-34 age range, expect 50%. That can rise to 70% if the respondents are 35 and older.

I think it is safe to say that most radio research companies work with 60%. That is, if the music test is designed for 120 respondents, they will ask the field service to recruit 200 people. 120 is 60% of 200.

If too many people show, then, yes, it does run up the costs. But it also increases the quality of  the research. And you can use the higher than normal rate when you plan the next music test.

Some research companies don't work this way. A few recruit with the assumption that 70% to 80% of the respondents will show up the night of the survey. If they get lucky, great. If they get a little unlucky, they usually convince the client to go forward, but with a slightly diminished sample. If they get a normal show rate, they will need to schedule a make-good test. But they expect to do that in most cases. The advantage is that they almost never wind up with extra respondents who run up the cost. The disadvantage is the need for the second night of testing, which has its own costs, and the delay in completing the data gathering.

One thing that a radio station can do is to set a target that actually is, while very nice, somewhat higher than what they really need. Then, a small recruit problem can still leave them with a usable sample.

But in any event, I strongly urge you to be realistic about show rates. If you do better than 60%, great! But for most stations, you should not count on it.

Surprise versus Pleasure

The formula is both simple and complex.

One of the advantages radio has over the iPod is that there is no surprise from an iPod. What comes out is only what you put in. Yes, the order can be randomized, and some have called that a kind of surprise, but I don't agree. That is only variety. Not that there is anything wrong with variety.

So why do we even bother with formats? Why not just "shuffle" the greatest 50,000 hits of the 50s, 60s, 70s..blah blah?

Silly, isn't it?

The answer is that while we enjoy surprise, we also enjoy pleasure. In fact, if I could be so bold...PLEASURE IS MORE IMPORTANT!

Futher, pleasure is defined in context. Damn, is that ever a monkey wrench thrown into the gears.

When you punch up a soft AC station, that Led Zeppelin cut isn't so pleasurable in context. When you are in a mood for Zepp = Good you'll find the rock station. Those listeners are just too clever.

So, why don't we tighten up even more? We could, but then a lot of people, having heard a song four or five times this week (or today), really don't get any PLEASURE out of hearing it again. And given the amount of listener feedback (research) gathered by the average station, maybe the song never gave them much pleasure in the first place. And then there is the joy those 5 minute commercial breaks.

Honestly, there is no shortcut. Do great research. Do it often. It is your conversation with the listeners. Learn which songs mean pleasure in the context of your format and your listeners. Understand how that will be altered over time because of fatigue. Understand the value of variety and of surprise. But understand that their value is diminished rapidly when you ignore the need for pleasure.

Remember that stimulus variation, variety, and surprise can also be created between the songs, or through the right comment by a jock about asong. We have a lot of tools with which to wage the war for listeners. Thanks to the iPod, we just don't have any shortcuts. That's okay with me. I'm happy to work for it.

What do you think?

What Do You Want The Listeners To Remember About Your Air Talent?

Jocks are actors. They play a role. The listener will have some impression of each. Or they won't. And if they do, it will be positive. Or it won't. My point is, this is something we are much too willing to leave to chance.

If you are an air talent, you really don't want everybody's impression of you to be based on pure chance, do you?

Worse, you don't want them to have no impression of you at all, right? 

Most programmers agree that air talent add an emotional connection to the programming. In some cases they do much more, but all jocks should achieve at least that level of human communication. Or we're just an iPod you can't program.

Here is an exercise I highly recommend that you take each of your jocks through:

1. Spend 5 minutes writing down 5 characteristics (honest, clever, warm, witty, knowledgable...) that you (the jock) would like your listeners to attribute to you. In fact, write down 10. Then think. Think some more. And cut it back to five.

Hint: It would probably be best if these were positive characteristics. So the PD might want to monitor this, but lightly. In fact, there are many positive characteristics. And every jock has individual strengths and weaknesses. When we're done with this step, the air talent will identify 5 characteristics that he/she values and which they can focus on for presentation as part of their public persona. They will focus in on the best of who they are.

2. This step will take just a little longer. For each of the 5 characteristics, write down 5 specific things you do, or can do, on air, that would tend to reinforce that image with the listener. For example, if you value "sounds like the guy next door who ought to be on the radio", you probably could enhance that by delivering content like the weather in a more informal manner, and avoid sounding like a "professional announcer". If you value "knowledgeable", then that weather forecast needs to be well prepared in advance, and probably delivered in a more formal way. Keep going until you have 5 specific actions for each. It is, of course, okay to go for extra credit.

What we're doing here is two things. First, we're adding specifics to what might otherwise be a vague concept. And second, we're reinforcing that truth that everything done on the air sends a message about your personality. If we can be more consistent, and we can have a few emotional goals in mind, we'll become memorable. Every liner, every contest, every listener interaction becomes an opportunity to be an actor, with a defined persona. Consistency, yes. But endless opportunities, all consistent with your "character".

I believe strongly that you can grow as an air talent by taking these simple steps. You are on a stage, and you are playing an emotional role. This exercise will help you focus and refine your skill. I think it will also make it much easier for people to remember you, notice you, appreciate you, and feel a human connection with the radio station.

If you're a programmer, help your air talent give your programming the emotional bonds that the listeners need. Take them through this simple but powerful exercise.

And let me know how it goes.

Music Experts Versus Radio Fans (aka Active Versus Passive)

Based on some of the blogs and articles I read, there is a huge misconception among radio pundits if not programmers: We should program for the people seeking new music.

Radio is not just music. Even a music station is more. It is sometimes not a whole lot more, but it is at least a little more, with the potential to be much more than just a preprogrammed iPod.

We are a multidimensional medium. We deliver all kinds of benefits, and we are able to deliver them to far more people than those that eagerly await the release of he the new [fill in the artist] CD, or those who can name every member of [fill in the band].

This fact is why we do research. Simply finding out which CDs sell, which concerts sell out and which songs get the most requests  is not going to give us feedback from more than a thin slice of our potential audience.

Over the years, radio's effort to get past sales and requests, and into the heads of all our valuable listeners, has been termed "passive" research. That has turned out to be an unfortunate label. Untold numbers of writers, evidently unfamiliar with what "passive" really means, scream in frustration "I don't want passive people to listen, I want active people!". Ignoring for the moment that I would happily take any listener I can come up with, they are misunderstanding the term passive.

"Passive" simply means that we reach out to the customer, as opposed to waiting for customers to do something "active" to reach out to us (requests) or who do something we can otherwise measure without spending any money (buy CDs and concert tickets).

"Active" research is simply awful. As I mentioned above, if you're going to be a successful station, you can't specialize in deeply involved music experts. You need fans - that is, people who have real lives, but just enjoy - ideally can't live without - having their favorite music on in the background.

Beyond that problem, these days all radio stations in competitive situations have a target demographic. But all of the "active' indicators lean young. Most requests come from younger listeners. CD sales drop off rapidly with age. And it is the rare concert populated by 30+ attendees.

There are two interesting corollaries to this:

1. How you research newer music (or unfamiliar music) is very important to your station's success.

2. Just as your audience extends far beyond the core "active" fans of the music you present, your ability to enhance the total music package is greatly enhanced. What might at first glance seem to obvious (because you too are an active fan of this music!) is valuable, compelling content to almost your entire audience.

I'll look more closely at both of those corollaries in future posts, because both present a way for you to increase your ratings.