Here’s a shockingly out of touch Ad Age column by Al Ries, one of the co-authors of the seminal classic Positioning.
Ries complains about advertising clutter in general, selecting radio as his anecdotal whipping boy. Radio has too many spots, says Ries. It’s “RadiADo,” not radio.
He goes on to argue that we should be more concerned about satellite radio than our terrestrial peers because, presumably, there are no spots on the music channels there.
This is, all in all, as tepid and simplistic and thoughtless an analysis about the problems of two industries – the advertising and radio ones – as one is ever likely to read.
Yes Al, clutter exists and distractions are proliferating. And yes, radio is cluttered. And so is TV, and so is cable, and so is the average commercial web page, and so is AOL, and so is Vogue, and so is the New York Times, and so is the landscape and so is the urinal in the local men’s room.
Radio is not alone in this, nor should it be singled out.
But ask the deeper question: If radio featured significantly less advertising, would that keep listeners away from their CD’s and iPods and satellite radios and TV’s and video games? Indeed, would that make the radio industry a healthier one?
Less is not more unless less is zero.
Then less is called “subscription.”
Just a curious postscript….If commercials are so annoying to Mr. Ries and satellite is so cheap, then why does he keep tuning radio in, hour after hour?
I agree that “everything is cluttered,” but if that’s the only argument, it’s a copout.
I can ignore extra pages of ads in the Times. Publications like Vogue (where it’s ALL ABOUT the ads) don’t count. (Remember Computer Shopper?. Used to buy every issue.) I don’t patronize stores that bombard me with commercials. I can ignore or avoid most of it.
But radio and television are (absent things like the Tivo) linear media. I HAVE to sit through the “eight minutes of clutter at the top of the hour,” unless I take positive action.
For radio, the “positive action” USED to be limited to fruitlessly cycling through the other four buttons on my car radio (each of which led to another station running synchronized spot sets). But now that “positive action” can be punching up the iPod, or a CD, or satellite.
What about the clutter? Well, the advertisers are (or should be) concerned that it will encourage me to wander off, and not be there to hear their pitch. But the station operator should be concerned that, if I wander away, I just might forget to come back.
And remember, the commercials AREN’T the reason most of us listen to radio. Our “tuning in, hour after hour” isn’t BECAUSE of them, it’s IN SPITE of them.
——-
OT- Real lameness at Ad Age is requiring registration to READ the article comments.
You are quite right.
But your point is not the one Ries was making. He was singling radio out in a cluttered world. He wasn’t arguing that radio’s clutter was uniquely un-skippable.
I still say that reducing clutter places you in comparison with alternatives that have no clutter whatsoever – and in that context you will lose.
Ultimately – in radio – the clutter must be WORTH sitting through for the content. The “clutter” is the tax you pay for getting good stuff for free.
As long as the stuff is good enough.
It’s also worth noting that just because you CAN skip ads doesn’t mean you do. Most people do not. Indeed, if advertising didn’t work the media-entertainment industrial complex would surely grind to a halt. It works. And readers, viewers, and listeners pay attention to what’s relevant for them.
Advertising quantity isn’t the enemy. Bad and irrelevant spots are the enemy. Bad and irrelevant content is the enemy.
Mark -
Nice job calling out an “expert”.
The advertising world can often be too much ‘flash’ and not enough ‘cash’. People need substance from the experts, not posturing or ego indulgence.
I hope people take an important message from your post: don’t believe everything you hear.
Mr. Ries, I hope, is humbled and will stick to what he does know best about. Clearly that’s not radio advertising.
I don’t believe Ries is singling out radio, except to the extent that it was what he wanted to write that column about. But I could be wrong…
He’s right on one point: The ad count HAS gone up. (Way up, compared to the days of the NAB’s Radio Code.) The non-ad clutter HAS increased, too– partly because broadcasters have decided their audience is so dumb that the diary keepers have to be reminded what station they’re listening to every three minutes, lest they forget. And you’re right, the problem is that it’s not worth sitting through.
Anybody remember the days when there were quirky, creative local spots? (WTH, anybody recall a NATIONAL campaign that was creative and quirky? The last one I recall was Photomat!) IMO, the problem is that the rates have been pushed up so much that (1) most local advertisers (exception: car dealers with co-op money) have been priced off the air and (2) everyone who is left feels they can’t justify (or afford) a longer campaign that builds momentum, so they spend the time they DO buy shouting at the audience.
And then the time that’s left gets sold at bargain rates for bottom-of-the-barrel stuff touting get-rich-quick schemes, second mortgates, and debt consolidation.
Unfortunately, I don’t see this changing. Do you?
You are completely wrong about Ries’s intent. His article was called “How Radio Is Becoming RadiADo.”
It doesn’t get more singled out than that.
I’m glad you called him out Mark. I didn’t have the heart to.
Thanks Tom!
The reason Al singled out Radio is because it is favorite medium to listen to and his preferred medium to advertise on. Why? Because radio is so powerful. You should be honored he choose to write about it and offer radio a little of his advice. We love radio so much because listening to an advertising message is a direct path into the mind of the consumer. (Television is too visually oriented.) And owning a word is the key to building a brand. More than anything Al wants radio to survive and succeed. Having fewer commercials but at higher prices would be a great direction. It is a medium worth paying for. But if too many consumers get frustrated as you say they have many other options to turn to.
Thanks for your contribution, Laura.
There’s no question that radio should charge more for the value it provides. Nor is there any question that most radio spots suck ass.
Of course the sellers in the audience would remind me that the marketplace requires buyers willing to pay those higher rates. Buyers disciplined and informed enough to create spots which are more efficient and less, well, crappy.
And the same plethora of options which are now radio alternatives will apply negative rate pressure on radio with a smaller inventory of ads.
So we can talk about fewer spots and higher rates all we want.
But the future will be leaner and meaner.
And that may cost your dad his favorite programming.