It’s not that a Republican won the Massachusetts Senate race; I question how any Democrat could have lost. (Understanding the polictical dynamics is aided by this observation from John Gorman.)
It’s ironic that Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) kept her head in the sand exactly the same way as radio industry leaders have been doing; only, in this instance the impact was immediate. In the case of radio, it’s a long-term growing defeat that won’t get response because, like Coakley, radio industry leaders refuse to look at the facts – or should we say they only look at facts of their choosing.
There are two items of evidence to present on this issue. Here’s the first. After the devastation Lowry Mays brought upon the radio industry, how is it plausable that the Broadcasters Foundation of America created the Lowry Mays Excellence in Broadcasting Award? Jerry Del Colliano has penned the perfect piece on this topic, pulling together all the pertinent facts surrounding this surreal juxtaposition of realities. I’ll simply state that any radio industry publication backing this effort shows its ability to look around the truth. Mays, near singlehandedly, can be attributed with swelling the ranks of radio vets in need of the Broadcasters Foundation to proportions never known.
The second point to exemplify is the Coakley Cloud, defined as an environment for easily grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Please read therebuttal article written for MediaLife by Mary Beth Garber, President of the Southern California Broadcasters Association, for a demonstration on how this relates to the radio industry. In this rebuke of a MediaLife article titled “Outlook for radio in 2010,” Ms. Garber (while using select data to back her claim) pulls arguments that have been shattered again and again. Adding to this lackluster defense of radio is her failure to mention relevant items, such as the radio industry continuing to ignore the fact that more and more, advertisers are looking for documented results on their ad spending.
Need a few more examples? Let’s take this line from Ms. Garber’s article: “Today’s radio sounds better than ever due to digital and HD technology.” Sounds good, until you estimate the number of HD Radio receivers being used and the effect it has on listening trends (null). Another item mentioned by Ms. Garber: “Today every computer, virtually every MP3 and iPod, and any cell phone capable of downloading apps is streaming radio’s over-the-air content.” Only, the concept for streaming revolves heavily on NOT placing over-the-air content online. Two entirely different audiences exist with completely different needs. You can’t simply regurgitate on-air content online and expect it to be a draw.
Mary Beth Garber’s statements are akin to Martha Coakley blaming the Democratic Party for her loss in Massachusetts with no mention of the multiple gaffes she herself produced in this Senate run. John Stewart outlines a few, with deserved comments.
Here’s another major line in Ms. Garber’s article. The next time you think about moving your ad dollars out of radio and into the internet, check Nielsen or ComScore for their weekly internet ratings. You’ll discover that in any given week, about 60 percent more people will listen to radio than will log onto the internet.
If you do a thorough check, you’ll notice that internet ad spending is increasing not because of the numbers of people it reaches but because of how those people being reached can be tracked, authenticated, and responded to with appropriate messages designed around the advertising pitch. That is the wonder of being online. Like search engine optimization, it’s reaching a higher quality of prospects and watching them reach back that gives online the edge. Radio could use this online edge if it chose to change.
To quote her, again: Obviously there’s a big disconnect between reality and perception when it comes to radio. Yes, there is. Let’s continue: …the truth is that part of that perception is radio’s own fault, because the radio industry has been slow and quiet in its own defense or to publicize its noteworthy achievements. Not that I’m a naysayer, but if Ms. Garber would provide a list of these “noteworthy achievements” made since consolidation, I’ll reprint them here.
Advertising has changed. Audience desires have changed. Radio is still doing the same thing it’s done for decades, sliding into a much poorer quality product with the killing of newsrooms, voicetracking, and general cutbacks that grow the ranks of the Broadcasters Foundation recipients.
Radio tries to tie itself to elements of new media – for ex., Clear Channel’s announcement of creating “contextual advertising” – but people who know, know the real story. (Read Mark Ramsey’s take on this here.)
The radio industry has been in a Coakley Cloud for too long a time to be ignored, or waved away with claims based on numbers supplied by people standing to lose when the truth is believed.
How did radio lose this revenue race? By continuing to ignore all signs that its gaffes were leading it down a road less traveled, just like the smug Attorney General Martha Coakley did.
Indeed the radio industry is losing respect, ad dollars, and audience participation – three elements required to hold one’s head high.
Long ago the question turned from why radio isn’t winning in a changing media environment to why the radio industry is losing a race it was so well-positioned to win from the get-go.
Blaming it on the pundits has less effect than creating solutions, and it’s quite a bit easier. Which is why we see so little advancement in radio and why many executives maintain the status quo argument that the radio industry delivers what advertisers want, results. Radio just isn’t addressing the growing demand for proof.
(Repost from AG News: Wednesday -1/20/2010)
![Recommend [wdkkradio]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/arkayne-media/img/logo-recommend-me.png){kind=logo}
