June 5, 2012
Gordon Borrell came to Convergence fully armed with stunning statistics, as he usually does. He told Convergence attendees that in about 18 months digital advertising will take a 30% share of local ad dollars, surpassing newspaper as the number one medium. With radio taking about $303 million in digital dollars, that equates to less than 2% of the market -- and Borrell said with the second largest sales force in the country, radio should be getting a much larger share. He adds that if radio focused more on R.O.I. and less on entertainment, it could make big digital gains. We interviewed Borrell after his Convergence presentation to get more detail.
(6/7/2012 10:07:56 AM)
Excellent distinction, Gordon. It's like music radio is casually trying to boat a tuna (Programming) into a 12-foot dinghy when - without notice, by the way - a 10-foot shark (new online responsibilities) jumps into the vessel. So, everybody on board is freaking out about the man-eater and forgets about the tuna.
The correct and necessary strategy is to, somehow, get the shark out of the boat and the tuna in. They can come back for the shark when they have a bigger boat.
After all, it's only the tuna they can eat. Otherwise, the shark wrecks the boat and the fishermen starve. Or worse. They end up in the water with the shark. Thus endeth the analogy.
(6/6/2012 10:47:49 PM)Interesting comments, but some of them here really underscore the problem. So many in the industry can't seem to grasp the fact that the Internet isn't about their stations. It represents a completely NEW opportunity that allows you to leverage your station's strengths (like airtime promotion and sales forces) to get into new products....like online directories, couponing, deals, classified ads. It's a difficult concept to grasp for those who continue to believe the Internet is merely another marketing channel for radio.
(6/6/2012 6:37:34 PM)
Management are climbing all over each other to make their online presence worthwhile. I've had GM's tell me it (online) was going to save their bacon. It hasn't and it won't.
Until Programming is addressed, all of this is an exercise in futility - and a time and talent draining, expensive one at that.
What, I wonder, is it about Programming radio stations that terrifies these folks?
I think what he's saying is that we look at it as brand extension but little else. Focusing more on not only our own ROI but that of potential advertisers and going after some of that business that is out there is not widely being done.
Not that WE shouldn't be entertaining, just that we shouldn't look at it only as another place where our peeps can get their entertainment or whatever else we offer.
That's MY take. I could be all wrong.
Having said that, when a station is a minor player in its market because of a specialty format or other similar reason and its on-air ratings are already small, adding another 10 listeners by way of an audio stream (and 5 of them are in Central America) it hardly seems worth the effort at that level.
And I'm not kidding about 10 listeners. My smaller station that streams regularly tops out at 10, about half that on weekends. My FM music station tops out daily at 100 (although I have seen it as high as 200 during the Christmas season) and about a fifth of that on weekends. Is this really worth all the effort? Think Sound Exchange, technical setup for spot replacement, sales' time spent chasing quarters instead of dollars?
He (Borrell) adds that if radio focused more on R.O.I. and less on entertainment...
Righto. Who wants radio to be entertaining? Certainly NOT the listeners.... That's the problem with the industry today; more concerned with Return of Investment than Return of Listeners.
Add a Comment | View All Comments Send This Story To A Friend
