SUMMER, 1994
Lawyer-bashing is a fun sport. Unfortunately, lawyers have it over us in the radio research biz. At least they have "professional courtesy."
There is no "Journal of Radio Research," where we could exchange ideas about new techniques and approaches. We have no researchers' convention or organization. Ever see a group of researchers on a panel at a radio convention? The atmosphere is not exactly collegial.
Why am I telling you this? Because I think it's time for a CHANGE. I think it's time for radio research to become more "professional." But to do it, we need your help!...as its consumers, radio stations must demand a higher standard from the research firms that serve them. Specifically, here's what you should expect, and get from your radio research...
RESEARCHERS SHOULD SEPARATE FACT FROM OPINION. As reseachers, we're often asked questions that are not specifically answered by the research we have done for a station. That's OK. After all, research can't answer all of your questions...good research often raises questions. And researchers do get a unique perspective on radio in many different markets.
But, while our opinions may be valuable, they're still opinions! And you should know that.
Unfortunately, it isn't always apparent to clients what has come from research and what is opinion. Some think if we say it , it must be "research!" So, like TV journalists, it is up to us to clearly identify what comes directly from research data, what is analysis of research data and what is opinion. That way, you can make more informed decisions.
RESEARCHERS MUST BE OBJECTIVE. Objectivity is perhaps the most important quality a researcher can have. Without it, our analysis is inevitably "colored" by our point-of-view. And if you're going to make a decision based on preconceived notions, they may as well be your own! (You don't need to pay for someone else's lack of objectivity.)
Realistically, no one is entirely objective. We all have experiences and preferences that shape our view of the world (and our view of research data). That's inevitable. But recognizing our particular point-of-view can go a long way toward helping achieve objectivity. In addition, a firm committment to objectivity is essential.
Unfortunately, there are "conflicts of interest" that can make objectivity just about impossible for a researcher. And you should know about them...
RESEARCHERS SHOULD NOT BE SYNDICATORS. AND VICE-VERSA. If I am financially involved with satellite format or service, how can I possibly be objective about the best format for your station? Wouldn't I be more likely to consider my service or format first when making a recommendation? Of course. How likely would I be to recommend someone else's satellite format? Not very!
I have an even tougher time with syndicators that purport to "research" what format would be best for your station. What they're really doing is determining which one of their formats would be best. And often, it's what's "best" for them, not you.
Case in point: A number of years ago Satellite Music Network was under pressure to put "The Wave" NAC format on as many stations as possible.
Amazing how often their "research" showed a "hole" for The Wave. Not so amazing how often it flopped.
RESEARCHERS SHOULD NOT BE "FORMAT ADVOCATES." Sometimes, people ask me what formats I work in. I always answer "all of them!" How could I be objective if I were a "Country guy" or "CHR guy" (or whatever)? To advise your station its best strategy, I have to be open to all possibilities.
That's why I think it is a mistake to ask most programming consultants what format you should be in. Ask a Classic Rock consultant and he'll likely say Classic Rock. A Country consultant will no doubt think of Country first. They're not dishonest, just narrowly-focused -- few are equally adept at all formats. So hire your Oldies consultant only after you've decided on Oldies.
Unfortunately, researchers seem to be going in the direction of advocating formats as well. Most recently, we've seen this with the 70's/"Arrow" formats, with more than one firm jumping on the bandwagon.
The last thing radio needs is researchers who jump on the latest, hottest industry "buzz," fads and hypes....radio is quite capable of doing that all by itself! Instead, research must give you objectivity and perspective...listeners' point of view. (And, as I've said more than once, listeners don't read the trades!)
A researcher should be willing to recommend 70's Oldies or Big Band, Modern Rock or Country, Urban or A/C, Hot A/C or "Lite" A/C...whatever is the best strategy for your station. If a researcher becomes an advocate or specialist in any particular format, he no longer has the objectivity needed.
In addition, to achieve that goal...
RESEARCHERS SHOULD NOT WORK FOR YOUR COMPETITORS. When I was in radio, programming CHR and AOR, I thought my competitors were only other rock stations. When I got into research, I learned how wrong I had been...I was amazed at the amount of crossing over listeners did from format to format.
The truth is, other stations in your format are NOT your only competitors...ALL of the other stations in your market are! Some, obviously, are more competition than others, but as one firm has stated: "Radio is war. All stations compete for the same 100 share points." Given that, how can a research firm justify fighting on two or more sides of the battle?
I don't know, but some do. And I can't really blame them...I blame the station managers that put up with this #$%*x!
If I work with a station, I need to be able to tell them everything I learn from researching their market. If my client is a CHR and I see a great opportunity in Country, I need to tell them that. But I can't if I also work for a Country station in town.
Researchers can no more work for two or more stations in a market than lawyers can represent both sides of a negotiation.
RESEARCHERS SHOULD NOT "HYPE" RADIO. Sometimes, it seems what radio responds to best is hype...research that's "all new," "revolutionary," "secret weapon," "on the cutting edge," etc. etc. No wonder research companies keep reinventing the wheel.
The ultimate example came at last year's N.A.B. Radio Show. A firm (that I won't name) put on a seminar on how to "guarantee" improved ratings. I attended, because I'm by nature curious...I'm always up for learning something new.
But what I saw wasn't new at all. Instead, the firm trumpeted a technique we've been using routinely for years -- Cluster Analysis of music genre data. (There was no "guarantee" either.)
I found the whole thing embarassing....embarassing for the people involved and (more importantly to me) embarassing for the radio research business, trying to hype radio one more time.
Something you should know: There is very little new in research. The techniques used by radio research companies have been used in other marketing disciplines for years. That doesn't make them bad...quite the opposite, it makes them proven. At the same time, though, you shouldn't "buy the hype."
It all boils down to this...If you respond to hype, you're going to get hyped! If you hire a research firm with conflicts of interest, don't expect to get all of the information you need.
On the other hand, if you value professionalism and objectivity when you make your research decision, you can get it. It's up to radio to demand more professionalism from radio research.
The choice is yours.