Google Search


Search This Blog

Sunday, September 28, 2014

CRN: Listeners Question Impact of Radio Ads


CRN International has released results from an online research poll it recently conducted which the company says concludes listeners are raising questions about the impact of traditional radio commercials. CRN says the findings suggest that some of the more traditional methods of messaging are not necessarily the strongest strategies for brands to employ to meet their marketing objectives.

77 percent of the respondents said they are most interested in listening to useful or entertaining information about an area of interest to them, surpassing the second most popular response, which was hearing about and participating in contests or sweepstakes (11 percent). Less than 2 percent said their top choice would be listening to traditional commercials. CRN says the results also showed that 67 percent of consumers don?t make it past the second ad during a break.

CRN says more than 80 percent of the respondents said they pay little attention to radio spot commercials. Those ads, they said, have little chance of influencing a buying decision. About one-third of the survey base said they listen to most of a commercial, while two-thirds said they do not. About 19 percent of the survey group ? excluding those who said they do not listen to radio ? said they do not listen to radio commercials at all. 42 percent of the consumers said messaging that used everyday people like themselves to endorse a product would likely increase the chances of considering or buying that product.
Almost 60 percent said they would be very or somewhat receptive to considering the product of a brand that was sponsoring a contest or sweepstakes on the radio. A little more than one-quarter of the respondents said a celebrity DJ personality endorsement would positively influence their consideration of a product. A little less than one-quarter said attending a local radio station live appearance would increase their chances of considering or buying the sponsoring brand?s product.

Read more from the CRN study HERE

(9/26/2014 4:55:35 PM)
To be sure, Mr Kalt has his sincerity parked in the right place.
What he fails to appreciate - and I find this to be absolutely astounding - is that listeners have little or no recall of the content to which they are exposed on the radio.

Even multiples of reach and frequencies generate a disturbing amount of conscious recall - that is to say: a very small amount.

Fortunately, "conscious recall" is not required to generate behaviors. Otherwise, we wouldn't have an industry at all.

(9/26/2014 2:52:57 PM)
At CRN we are big believers in radio and have been in the business for 40 years and are one of the largest independent spenders in the medium. We conducted this survey among persons who said they listen to broadcast radio. If they said no, we went no further with them. Their responses are what they are and validate our belief in the way we use the medium. There is nothing negative here and the current discourse on spot sets underscores that. This information is intended to be of help to you.
(9/26/2014 10:14:13 AM)
Yes, Ted, folks might very well wonder "why that is".

There are valid, viable and reasonable explanations for all of that... and much, much more!

(The seminar will be in room 231. Date to be announced at a later time. Circle-jerkers will be mocked, ridiculed and digitally recorded.)

(9/26/2014 9:10:03 AM)
And my children all claim that "Do not listen to radio commercials" But they can repeat every one of them. I wonder why that is...
(9/26/2014 7:54:18 AM)
This is not useful research. All this article does is frighten the locals and the yokels.

Real people have NEVER been able to identify their electronic media responses, desires or the effectiveness of spots in influencing their buying decisions.

Recall one of the times where we asked them what they wanted and they replied with "More Rock-Less Jocks". And here we are - still pooched.

Add a Comment | View All Comments Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here