If you first got into radio in the ‘80s, you learned about positioning. The “bible” was a little book by Al Ries and Jack Trout, Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind.
In recent years, new marketing gurus have emerged on the scene, often with a very different take. But a recent article in Advertising Age by Al Ries reminded me why I gravitated to this guy back in the days before there were smartphones and “Like pages.” His thoughts in “Being Customer Oriented Isn’t the Best Marketing Strategy” grabs you from the get-go.
Ries’ take is that a focus on what the customer wants via research like focus groups or quantitative studies hurls you into the same path where everyone else is located. His premise is that most people will tell you they’re satisfied with the current offerings, but simply desire cheaper versions – whether we’re talking cars, tablets, or leaf blowers.
But that thinking puts marketers in a position where they end up going head-to-head against a category leader. And that is not usually the smartest place to go. For example, ask people about their eCommerce preferences, and they’ll tell you they want variety and choice, ease of shopping, reliable service, fast delivery and the lowest possible price.
But is that a winning formula for competing against Amazon? And why would most consumers switch away from the brand in which they’ve invested in a service like Amazon Prime, while enjoying pretty strong customer service over these past several years? Most Amazon customers aren’t shopping for another service that’s similar but cheaper.
Ries posits that the contrarian approach is almost always the way to go. The way you compete against brand and market leaders isn’t by copying them or undercutting them, but by truly being different. That’s also the way you gain attention in an increasingly crowded media environment.
And when you look at some of the most successful endeavors in the radio business, they often bear little resemblance to what was already leading the market.
Howard Stern didn’t become famous because he sounded like a “Morning Zoo.” That position was already taken in the market. He had to be different in order to stand out.
Classic Rock sounded nothing like the other Rock stations on the air back in the ‘80s. It staked out very different musical turf and played by a different set of rules.
Rush Limbaugh took a completely different approach to all those other talk shows. He was about entertainment value and being bombastic.
All-Christmas Music stations took the plunge and created a music stunt that has proved impossible to beat every fourth quarter. But they had to do it by breaking format.
Serial is a podcast that sounded unlike any other podcast that came before it. And another of its key differences was that it was a story with a beginning, middle, and an end.
If you “do different” right, you might end up not just being successful, but creating an entirely new category.
For inspiration, the radio documentary “I Am What I Play” by Roger King profiles for iconic DJs who became stars – not by sounding like everyone else, but by being different. Charles Laquidara, Meg Griffin, David Marsden, and Pat O’Day all made names for themselves by celebrating their difference on and off the air.
Skeptics might say these radio innovations are difficult to create, market, launch, nurture, and develop – and of course, they’re right. The road to being different is often filled with speed bumps and skeptics.
Your strength is very likely your difference. But it’s not easy to come up with a format with legs, a syndicated show that can go the distance, or even a benchmark bit that can thrive for years and generate daily tune-in.
But when you decide to take on that big Country station in town or launch a morning show up against the market leader, you’d better have a “difference design” that separates you from what listeners are already enjoying.
Most listeners are not in the market for a new radio station or a new morning show.
Unless, of course, you’re different.
Make a difference.
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
This column is so right on the money and I’m surprised it didn’t generate any comments. While radio is a long way from the death spiral that many, including some media buyers/planners believe, it is slowly leaking oil and sliding slowly isn’t a great business plan.
So why are so few trying to make a difference? Some of radio’s biggest companies don’t have the financial bandwidth to afford to experiment, but many do. And even when someone tries something and it works – like what Entercom has done with their alternative station in Seattle, few if any adopt it, or see if they can improve on it.
I truly don’t understand that lack of controlled, constructive experimentation. Fred will probably lambast me for this, but radio is squandering lots of money hiring people to sell digital assets with very little value – particularly when compared to old fashioned radio. That money would be better spent trying to increase the appeal of the core product, or purchasing digital assets that are compatible with radio that could add documentable support toward solving its top advertisers marketing challenges.
Classic Rock, Howard, Rush and All Christmas were game changers, but all are old examples. There are some pretty large radio companies, with manageable debt who could/should be leading the charge and for the most part, they just aren’t.
I don’t get it.
Bob, you’ll get no argument from me on your comment. I’m all for monetizing radio’s assets – traditional or digital – but someone has to be focused on creating those assets. And the need to be innovative, experimental, and different has never been greater.
When you think about some of the successes I cited (and there are so many, many more), most were met with skepticism or even dismissed because they didn’t conform to anything that came along before them. But it starts with a company focus on innovation. Some are clearly moving down this path, but too many others are simply going through the motions of executing “paint by numbers” formats. That’s just not going to get it done in this environment. Thanks, Bob.
Sometimes we make radio too complicated. Radio is very simplistic – give the listener what they want! Radio’s function is to inform and entertain. People want music and they want to be talked to – not talked at. Time, weather, traffic. It’s not about what you say but how you say it – grabbing the listener’s attention.
This becomes so much more important as the digital dash technology and streaming cars enter the landscape. It allows the driver and their passengers more options than ever before. It’s why we on the air must be relevant, must inform and entertain, and keep giving the listener a reason to come back and stay with us.
Radio stations must remember that bland doesn’t attract, and people want to use technology to their advantage. We must be innovative, but we cannot be afraid to try new things outside the box, and like Fred said, “Make a difference.”
Thanks for the reminders to keep it simple, Jeff. Appreciate you reading our blog and taking the time to comment.
In 1976, I went to work for KYA in San Francisco. At the time, our competitor, KFRC, was probably the best CHR station in the country. It was a great learning experience. They not only won the ratings, they created a “follow the leader” mentality. That was my introduction to the idea that you can’t beat a charismatic competitor by trying to do what THEY do, only better!
I ran into the same mentality at Z100 in NY, where the station’s response to Howard Stern was to urge us on the Zoo to be MORE LIKE HOWARD! And this in spite of the fact that Trout and Ries had done a study and white paper urging us to go in the opposite direction (to be the “good guys.”)
It’s tough to be contrarian. Even before the age of consolidation and the burgeoning “top down” effect of too many middle managers, a PD had about 90 days to show that his approach was bearing fruit.
In my experience, if a manager says “no” to everything, they’ll be right about 95% of the time. But they’ll miss that 5% of innovation where all the action is. High achievers have the ability to spot that small percentage of people who can be game-changers.
Indeed they do, Gary. In competitive radio markets (and aren’t they all?), you have to find that defining difference, hope that people care, and than execute it brilliantly. Thanks for the comment and the observations.
“I ran into the same mentality at Z100 in NY, where the station’s response to Howard Stern was to urge us on the Zoo to be MORE LIKE HOWARD! And this in spite of the fact that Trout and Ries had done a study and white paper urging us to go in the opposite direction (to be the “good guys.”)”
Having just discovered your blog, this is a tad late and likely less than front-of-mind as of 7/18, For the record, Gary Bryan’s summation does not resemble what was occurring inside the station up to the time I left the Zoo, the manufactured reason I left and the subsequent hiring of Gary after his PLJ gig.
The Trout & Reis White Paper, a copy of which I have in front of me, went to great lengths to recommend the Zoo take on Stern as “The New Zoo. A meaner, nastier show that attacks those that need attacking. The Zoo-keeper for the New Zoo would be Brian Wilson, your own Mr. Nasty….”
The Program Director was decidedly upset with their recommendations likely because this would change the internal control dynamic of the Zoo and worked diligently to bury the report. The GM’s general ignorance of programming deferred to the PD and assured the T&R solution wouldn’t be implemented.
To state it was the “the station’s response to Howard Stern was to urge us on the Zoo to be MORE LIKE HOWARD!” and a Trout & Reis study “urging us to go in the opposite direction (to be the “good guys.) turns reality on its head; it was precisely the opposite.
OTOH, if “the station” i.e. the PD adopted the T&R strategy while claiming T&R recommended “nice guy”, it put the PD in the position of looking smarter than the high-priced consultants by co-opting their strategy. Lacking the teeth to actually attack Stern or anyone else effectively, the Zoo simply wimped out, a direct reflection of the PD’s success as one of those who “… miss that 5% of innovation where all the action is. “
Brian, this is a fascinating story and I appreciate you telling it here. Hindsight is, in fact, 20:20. We’ve all been there – that crossroads where the tough decision has to be made. I can only imagine what the Reis & Trout study cost the station. As a consultant who is occasionally ignored – insert 🙂 here – you come to realize not every client is dedicated to followoing the plan, much less adopting it in the first place. The oppossite corner is often a smart place to be, but it takes balls and commitment – often in short supply. Thanks again for weighing in.