Last December, you may recall a cranky post I wrote following the Nielsen Client Conference/Jacobs Summit about of all things, politics.
At the event, Edison’s Larry Rosin and Joe Lenski moderated a panel with two mega-politicos, Mark Mellman and David Winston.
The lowlight of the session was Mellman explaining how broadcast radio had failed to prove itself as a viable medium for political advertising, an admission that shocked me. Here was his money (or lack thereof) quote, as reported at the time by Tom Taylor:
“You’ve got to be able to show people, in a controlled experiment, what the impact (of radio) was.”
Essentially, Mellman asserted that radio simply had never made its case about effectiveness in political races, while TV and the Internet have.
And while he wasn’t excited about the impact of web advertising, he dismissed radio advertising as unproven.
But that’s not stopping Pandora.
In a recent Wall Street Journal article by Elizabeth Dwoskin, Pandora is jumping in the political arena big time. By connecting election results by ZIP Code with user music preferences, Pandora claims that it can determine political and party preferences of its audience. This sophisticated targeting is yet another example of data being used to trump the notion of broadcasting to a mass audience and hoping for the best. And that’s essentially what radio advertising hopes to do.
You could make the argument that questions the logic of lumping users by musical preference and hoping to zero in on their political leanings. There must be Republican Bob Marley fans on the one hand, and Democratic Kenny Chesney followers on the other. But with the help of two political advertising firms – Precision Network and Pulpit Interactive, Pandora is going for the political dollars in a big way.
Of course for Pandora (and Spotify, Facebook, and the rest), it starts with information provided by users in the initial registration process. Most people are willing to give up some information in order to listen to their favorite streaming channels or to “socialize” with friends and family members. And that’s where the profiling starts.
And it’s not just happening in politics. You may remember our panel at DASH this past October where car dealers told us they are increasingly moving dollars away from traditional broadcast and to achieve more ROI with search and other sources that allow for hyper-targeting prospective buyers. It comes down to knowing more about who consumers are, where they live, and other key data points.
So what about registering for radio?
Well, for terrestrial broadcasts, that’s a non-starter. But for station streams, it’s a whole different animal. Are radio listeners willing to provide basic information in order to access a favorite station’s stream? And if so, are certain format fans and demographic groups more likely to give up this information?
That’s why we asked the question in Techsurvey10. And we’ll highlight this key finding for radio in our stakeholder webinars in late March, and at the Worldwide Radio Summit in L.A. in early April.
It will be a good news finding for radio because most people have grown accustomed to giving up some information in exchange for getting something back. But it should also serve as a wake-up call, because radio needs a more forward-thinking marketing strategy and it might start with the political sector. After all these years of being part of the fabric of people’s entertainment lives, radio should be garnering major league dollars at election times. Sadly, that Nielsen Audio session last December suggested otherwise.
Radio broadcasters need a strategy to prove the medium’s ability to effectively reach voters, and to provide more granular targeting.
Otherwise, in the upcoming election, radio may find that it’s politically incorrect.
Jacobs Media has consistently walked the walk in the digital space, providing insights and guidance through its well-read national Techsurveys.
In 2008, jacapps was launched - a mobile apps company that has designed and built more than 1,300 apps for both the Apple and Android platforms. In 2013, the DASH Conference was created - a mashup of radio and automotive, designed to foster better understanding of the "connected car" and its impact.
Along with providing the creative and intellectual direction for the company, Fred consults many of Jacobs Media's commercial and public radio clients, in addition to media brands looking to thrive in the rapidly changing tech environment.
Fred was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 2018.
- Radio + Thanksgiving = Gratitude - November 27, 2024
- Is It Quittin’ Time For SiriusXM? - November 26, 2024
- Radio, It Oughta Be A Crime - November 25, 2024
Pandora has been targeting political for a while. They have a political shop set up in DC and, like Google, can target based on Congressional districts. They have even boasted about their success with specific campaigns and in the issue arena. That kind of targeting, though imprecise, is appealing. However, we need to remember a few things about Pandora:
1) When you register you give a zip code. You rarely update that information if you move. I have heard directly that Pandora believes 95% of us stay in the same general area.
2) The only other information they have are your gender, birthday and e-mail. They have gotten very sophisticated in appending that data through third party vendors to get a better picture of who you are…but it is not exact.
3) This whole political affiliation thing is a big guess. How many districts voted Democrat in the Presidential race but Republican in the local?
What Pandora is doing well is selling the notion that have the ability to do a better job of targeting than radio. And, in a digital/technical sense – they do. But, they are selling impressions based on the number of users in a given area. And, as we know, digital impressions are dangerous.
That said,in the end it is about effectiveness. If a political shop only buys Pandora – and it works – it worked. If you listen to radio in DC – especially WTOP – you’ll often hear tons of issue ads. Why? Because it reaches the right audience.
Pandora is winning the “bright shiny thing” war and radio is letting them get away with it. IHeart radio is not the answer. Selling our story better is.
I’ll get off my soap box now…
Steve, thanks for jumping on the soap box with some great thoughts on this topic. Mark Mellman was very skeptical of Internet media at the Nielsen Audio conference, BUT he gave brands credit for proving their mettle – and that’s where radio came under fire. As I mentioned in the post, a lot of the way Pandora makes its calculations is very leap of faith-based, but as you indicate, they’re out there slugging away and they’re a hot, buzz-worthy brand. Radio, on the other hand, takes for granted its efficacy as a tool to reach voters (or the “undecideds” the strategists really want), and both Mellman and Winston agreed that’s a mistake. The industry cannot afford to let any more dollars slip away. Appreciate you taking the time.
Late to the party here, but, isn’t Pandora being criticized by radio for doing a less than perfect job of what radio isn’t doing at all?
Yes, Pandora’s targeting brings identifiable limits, but if you can increase your targeting from 0 to say, 50% efficiency, isn’t that something that brings value to a political advertiser? And isn’t that better than “yuh just can’t buy Fresh 99.3 on cawst puh point?”
Radio would do well to see Pandora’s limits and raise them, rather than criticize their so so hand in a game they aren’t even playing. And limiting that to streams wouldn’t help – Pandora probably has more audience at any given time than all of radio’s streams put together.
Maybe if radio paid PPM/diary keepers more for revealing their political affiliation/last election voting records, they might be able to monetize that via political ad spending increases. Maybe a beta test in three or four markets could reveal what if any return there might be on that kind of investment. Maybe no one will try it.
Bob, you raise several points here, and I’m envisioning a one-on-one debate with you and Mary Beth Garber at a convention to be named later. Pandora has myriad issues, BUT is going about this aggressively and with a plan. The big question is whether radio has a strategy and a means to convince politicos of its legitimacy, its unique benefits, and its value in elections. Part of the reason why radio streams aren’t as robust as they could be is that few radio stations promote them with any degree of conviction. And we know that big reason for that is fear of losing ratings credit. It’s complicated, and hopefully, better measurement and aggregated numbers can provide a path to streaming profitability and a more competitive strategy for broadcasters in situations just like this one. Thanks for commenting.
How many political strategists who want to stay in business would buy and use a zip code list where the average address had not been updated in 3 to 14 years? And where there was no tangible proof of the past voting performance or political registration of the people on the list?
That is exactly what they would be doing if they bought Pandora, which has never, in its 14 years of amassing its unverified 225 million registrants, asked them to update zip codes or any other information. Only age is updated – by the software – every year.
And Pandora’s statement that “about 95% of us stay in the same area” does not match Census data. About 40% of the population moves over a 3 year period. About 60% to 70% of 18-34s will move over 3 years. They may stay within a 100 mile area, but they certainly do not stay in the same zip codes — which, any political strategist will tell you, are one of the keys in determining the political leanings of the person on the list.
There are a few ways to correlate users with their voting registration and past voting record. Pandora has access to none of them. Radio stations use Scarborough (and possibly GfK MRI and TMA, maybe Rentrak) as respected 3rd party providers of proof of how their listeners have voted, are registered and some of their lifestyle traits that are good indicators of political leanings.
Pandora has……hubris. I am still amazed at how many reporters print their claims without investigating. Without even thinking or asking questions. Pandora gets kudos for knowing how to manipulate them and get headlines over “facts” that are either pure conjecture or patently untrue.
Good points, MB. Broadcast radio has its own set of challenges here, but Pandora’s claims should be scrutinized to test out its efficacy as a media outlet for campaign advertising. Thanks for taking the time to provide this perspective.