Value to clients is about more than running ads.  And value to consumers is about more than simply playing music.

That’s the new world of radio today.

No longer is there a “sales side” or a “programming side.”  Nowadays there’s only one “side” and it’s the “value side.”

Value to clients and consumers at the very same time – mediated by your brand.

In the digital space, its all about value – not about interruptive ads stuck in the middle of valued content. In many ways, the client’s content IS the valued content. Watch this brief overview of the “value side” and why it’s the only side any of us should be on.

The video is part of a live Q&A with Federated Media managers hosted by Federated’s James Derby (thanks to Federated and to James for a great conversation).

Watch:

Prefer audio?  Try this:

Download mp3

(You can subscribe to all the MRM video and audio via iTunes and get the goodies before everybody else.  You can also get advance notice of this content if you “like” MRM on Facebook or follow me on Twitter).

A recent Mediapost piece commented on the inevitable consolidation of players in the every-day-a-new-entrant social TV space.  This is the ecosystem surrounding your favorite shows and fresh ways to interact with them and with your friends in their presence via second screen digital platforms.

The whole notion of social interactions surrounding entertainment brands is something I have been talking about for some time, and it remains an area relatively unexplored by radio broadcasters.

But the Mediapost piece makes an important point:

Viewers need clear locations to get their social TV media fix – not just separate “silos” of TV program information. Say hello to another Hulu-like problem.  Social media platforms are like any other mass entertainment business – they need scale. All this comes from the main instigators of TV content – big media companies who also need scale, as do TV marketers.

Radio has scale.  And to the degree that radio has the kind of content that makes one station – or the radio medium itself – unique from any other station or medium, scale amplifies the value of that content.  And the only thing harder than creating great content is creating great content that scales.

If a tree falls in the forest nobody hears it, no matter how splendid it may be.

For example, the greatest perceived threat of Pandora to radio is its fast track to scale, not simply the value proposition of personalized radio. Personalization is common.  Scale, that’s scarce.

Scale is radio’s most precious resource.  And it is one largely provided by our legacy monopolization of consumer ears, especially in cars.

Now is the time we must continually earn that scale, that reach.  And we will have to do so by focusing intently not on what our industry needs and wants but on what its consumers and advertising partners need and want.

This is a time of incredible opportunity for radio because it’s a time of incredible opportunity for entertainment brands that scale.

Use it wisely.

Another study from NAB has been issued which supports the notion that consumers want FM on their mobile phones.

And, like all studies about what people WILL do rather than what they HAVE DONE in the past, it’s flawed.

You can ask people what they value and what they have done and they will give you an answer that represents their best frame on reality. But ask them what they intend to have for breakfast tomorrow morning if the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars, and their answer will be far less predictive of actual behavior.

The NAB study asked some interesting questions, including this one:

During times of emergencies, such as blizzards, hurricanes, tornados and local or national security threats, a cell phone with a built-in radio would let you listen to local weather and other emergency alerts as they are happening. How important would this feature be to you?

That’s a decent question and it’s about what folks value, not how they predict their future behavior.  However, the question assumes no trade-off.  It assumes that the consumer makes no choice in how they would access this information.  It doesn’t, for example, ask them what form they would prefer to get their emergency information in (e.g., TXT, radio, email, tweet, etc.).

That said, it’s interesting to note that the fraction of consumers who consider this to be “very important” is actually down from 34% to 29% since 2010.

Then, after priming consumers with this value proposition for radio (and priming is a form of bias), they ask the “money question”:

When thinking about purchasing your next cell phone, would you consider paying a one-time only fee of 30 cents if you could receive access to local radio stations through your phone? This option would not require using a data or calling plan and would be a one-time only charge when you purchase the phone. Would you…[strongly, probably, or not consider this option]?

Now we’re into the “tomorrow’s breakfast” question.

The truth is that it’s easy to answer “yes” to this question because it lives in a bubble, whereas the real world features the nagging inconvenience of choices and trade-offs.

For example, we could ask this same question about receiving local radio stations in your toaster or your golf cart or your new tie. Actually, the idea of an extra 30 cents for radio in a new tie is a pretty good one!  Maybe I should have held that one back.

43% say they’d “strongly consider” the option of 30 extra cents for radio on their phones (ahem, but shouldn’t this be way closer to 100%?!  It’s 30 friggin’ cents!)

It’s a silly question for another reason – if you actually had two versions of the same phone, one with radio and the other without, and one was 30 cents more than the other, 100% of consumers choosing between those phones would buy the radio-powered one!

It’s easy to say “yes” to a small price point for value.  It’s tougher to trade that value off other value and determine what phone (not what radio) one is actually going to buy when at the point of purchase.

And then the study goes on to ask a truly absurd question:

Regardless of whether you own a cell phone or not, if your phone was equipped to receive local radio stations without using applications (apps) or your data plan, for which of the following, if any, would you use this function? Please select all that apply….[weather, music, emergency information, etc.]?

So now we are asking to consumers to imagine owning a phone (if they don’t) and further imagine that they are unable to use any apps or data on their device (note we are specifically not asking them if they would prefer to get any of this information by TXT, which is how Kenyan Coffee farmers will be getting it, and their grid isn’t better than yours).

So what does it all add up to?

I think it would be fabulous if radio were part of every mobile phone.  But I think it’s up to the consumer to vote for that feature at the cash register.  And it’s our value proposition, not a survey statistic, which will drive that outcome.

There are phones with this capability built-in – even in this study 16% of consumers say their phone contains a radio. Are they right?  Do FM-enabled mobile phones possess 16% of the market?  If so, then isn’t that a far better argument for FM on mobile phones than any biased construct that aims to predict future behavior without trade-offs?

And why is the selling point obsessed on emergency information when “the grid” goes down?  What about the convenience of using the same radio dial consumers are comfortable and familiar with transplanted to their favorite mobile device?

This is not a tough discussion.  Either consumers value the feature and actually buy the phones – or they don’t and won’t.

Rather than deal with hypotheticals and maybes, why don’t we deal with ways to make the cash registers ring for sellers of mobile devices?  Why don’t we deal with what consumers actually want, not what they say they might want later?  Why don’t we ask device makers how radio could help them sell more and better phones?

So says Pandora CEO Joe Kennedy in this opening session highlight from the recent Worldwide Radio Summit, moderated by Triton’s Mike Agovino.

Joe also shares some stats on reduced TSL for radio and matches that against the growth for Internet Radio.  These are stats that are not often publicized in the radio industry.

Let’s be frank:  Of course some Internet radio growth will come from radio. Maybe most of it will come from radio.  And it will not stop people from listening to the radio.  Rather, it will shave away quarter-hours from radio, just as every other entertainment distraction does.

That’s not to minimize its impact, it’s to recognize that all media of all types are losing usage (if not users) as choices and forms and control options proliferate.

There’s more music than ever being listened to – just not on the radio.  There’s more TV than ever being watched – just not on the big screen in your living room.  It’s important for radio to face up to this and deal with it as the challenge it is.

For only by facing the truth of the present can we smartly and enthusiastically act to change the truth of the future.

Watch:

Prefer audio?  Try this:

Download mp3

(You can subscribe to all the MRM video and audio via iTunes and get the goodies before everybody else.  You can also get advance notice of this content if you “like” MRM on Facebook or follow me on Twitter).

On the surface, retailer Target may not have a lot to do with your radio brand. But look closer, because the similarities are staggering.

Like radio, Target has a wide array of items, together aimed at a broad-based, massive audience.  Like radio, Target is suffering from a million tiny cuts as Internet options eat into their business with lower pricing or greater selection (i.e., in the radio context, greater value).  Like radio, Target is a trusted brand that includes human-to-human interaction.  Like radio, Target lives in your local market.

So why is Target discontinuing Amazon’s Kindle, how does this speak to a larger trend, and what does this have to do with radio?

From Huffington Post:

Target’s decision to phase out the Kindle is also occurring as the retailer, along with other major merchants, are trying to fight a growing practice called “showrooming.” That’s when shoppers, armed with smartphones, browse products in physical stores and then shop online for a better price.

Want to hear Lady Gaga?  There are a million places to do it now.  Love a song you just heard on the radio?  Buy it with one-click from iTunes.  Want an experience similar to your favorite station’s but without all the commercials? Sign up for SiriusXM or Pandora.

So what’s Target’s solution to this problem?

Again, HuffPo:

Earlier this year, Target sent out a letter to vendors asking for help in developing exclusive merchandise and matching rivals’ online prices.

“Exclusive merchandise.” That is, something you can find only on the shelves at Target.  To excel in a world with a million ways to get some form of you, you have no choice but to aspire to be the best in the world at what you do.  And the easiest way to be “best” is to be exclusive.

So what’s exclusive about your brand and highly valued at the same time? Exclusive means “one of a kind,” remember.  Exclusive means “only you.”

“Matching rivals’ online prices.” This is another way of saying that Target wants to alter the value differential between their offerings and those of anybody else. For that content which cannot be exclusive to you, how do you make the experience that surrounds it just as good as any other experience consumers can get from anybody else?  This is the radio equivalent of matching price.

If the inadequacies of our “value match” lead consumers to search out options elsewhere, we will have nobody to blame but ourselves.

So think like Target:  Increase your “exclusives” and match the value proposition of your alternatives.