Mason's Morning Minute

Voice Tracking Is Killing Us

"A lot of companies have chosen to downsize, and maybe that was the right thing for them. We chose a different path. Our belief was that if we kept putting great products in front of our consumers, they would continue to open our wallets." -Steve Jobs

This is an amazing thing to me, but at some point in the past the audience stopped being the top priority for programming. Oh, we voice lots of words that may make it sound otherwise, but them we lay down some voice tracks so we can attend some meeting.

I've been told that I just don't understand, that to survive you have to do some tracking. I've been told that voice tracking can be as good as live if you do it right.

Sorry, no sale. Let me tell you what I do understand.

Listeners are the starting point for all success in radio. They deliver the ratings we need, they buy the clients products, they fund our operation if we're non-comm, and they respond, react, and engage with us. Without listeners we fail, plain & simple.

The problem has been that we're giving them back less than they deserve. Being as pivotal to our success as they are, they should get our best in return, and not some "good enough" voice tracked show with no involvement or engagement isn't our best. You see, we can't allow them to simply be "listeners.". To succeed now and on the future we need them involved and engaged - a part of the station - not just passively listening.

I'm not saying we should be live with some run of the mill, "that was/this is" announced. We need to be staffed with real talent who love what they do, and inspire loyalty in return. We need to put enough time into creativity and prep that we're programming shows listeners are attracted to and involved in.

Ready to tell me I don't understand again?

Here's the unvarnished truth: If we continue to make anything but the listener the highest priority, we will fail.

It's not advancing technology that will kill us, it's the "good enough" mentality I see so much of. We're conflicted, as we rave on that content us king, and then something "good enough," but not inspiring. If people aren't heard talking about radio it's not because of the iPhone and the Internet, it's because we're offering less than we should. I'm not afraid of future technology, we can integrate that into our programming, but I'm terrorized by the thought that we die of "good enough." How deluded does one have to be to think that voice tracking or vanilla DJ's will aid our success? Why don't we understand how important an engaging and entertaining personality is?

I get that the CEOs of the big broadcasting companies have little radio and no programming experience. It's understandable that someone who spent their career in sales doesn't understand the value of true talent. But what about we programming people? How can we stand idly by when we know the truth? We're going to lose this battle because we aren't fighting for what we know, not because of the poor economy and a hundred other reasons.

Remember the concept of the Doom Loop in the book Good To Great? Maybe we need to read it again. Or maybe you think that I just don't understand.

Who Would You Recommend?

"Google actually relies ok our users to help with our marketing. We have a very high percentage of our users who often tell others about our search engine." -Sergy Brin

It's been another busy travel day, one of those where you run into more people than usual. It always brings up the subject of "customer experience," and who stands out.

Think about your past couple of days. Who did you run into that you'd talk about, and would that talk be positive or negative? The place you had lunch, what it was like at the bank, the mail you got, the customer service on the phone, these are all examples of touchpoints where service counts. Now, the question again, who would you recommend? Worse yet, who would you slam? People have tended to tell more people about a bad experience than a good one.

Ok, got the people you'd recommend in your mind? Now, think about your radio station. When people call the front desk or request line, when people run into your staff at a remote, when they write or email, what kind of experience do they encounter? Is it a good one, just ok, or a bad one? Just as important, was the experience consistent with your stations brand?

Every research project I've ever seen about the subject indicates people more than 80% of people first discover a radio station from a friend, family member, or co-worker. Is there any question about people avoiding a station because of what someone said? Word of mouth is a double edged sword.

If it were me I'd have people call the front desk and go to remotes just to see what kind of experience people are having. I'd look at how letters and email are being answered. I'd look for every listener touchpoint and examine the experience.

How about you?

Who Would You Recommend?

"Google actually relies ok our users to help with our marketing. We have a very high percentage of our users who often tell others about our search engine." -Sergy Brin

It's been another busy travel day, one of those where you run into more people than usual. It always brings up the subject of "customer experience," and who stands out.

Think about your past couple of days. Who did you run into that you'd talk about, and would that talk be positive or negative? The place you had lunch, what it was like at the bank, the mail you got, the customer service on the phone, these are all examples of touchpoints where service counts. Now, the question again, who would you recommend? Worse yet, who would you slam? People have tended to tell more people about a bad experience than a good one.

Ok, got the people you'd recommend in your mind? Now, think about your radio station. When people call the front desk or request line, when people run into your staff at a remote, when they write or email, what kind of experience do they encounter? Is it a good one, just ok, or a bad one? Just as important, was the experience consistent with your stations brand?

Every research project I've ever seen about the subject indicates people more than 80% of people first discover a radio station from a friend, family member, or co-worker. Is there any question about people avoiding a station because of what someone said? Word of mouth is a double edged sword.

If it were me I'd have people call the front desk and go to remotes just to see what kind of experience people are having. I'd look at how letters and email are being answered. I'd look for every listener touchpoint and examine the experience.

How about you?

Maybe We Should Stop Lying

AT&T isn't on my recommend list right now.  While I love the iPhone, having to deal with the signal issues of AT&T has been challenging.  Granted, there is some kind of dead zone between home and office that I encounter twice a day, but it's not like I live in the sticks, and it never improves.  Then I see all these "more bars in more places" TV commercials.  I know that technically they do have more bars in more places, because their world wide coverage is more comprehensive, but when I keep having problems and they keep saying they have more bars, I can't help thinking they're lying.

Advertising has stretched the truth forever, but the consumer isn't as dumb or accepting as they used to be, and now has ways to offer their own opinion, through web sites for that purpose and, of course, blogs.

As I always seem to do, I started thinking about radio, and realized we're as bad as everyone else.  We probably don't realize what's happening, but every time we say we have "the best music," and the listener hears essentially the same music elsewhere, we become liars.  Every time we talk about our great variety, and then play the same songs over, and essentially play the same songs as our competition, we become liars.

The problem has been that we've been able to get away with this kind of thing in the past.  People haven't paid attention, or believed us, or just didn't care.  Now, with the move toward consumer involvement and co-authoring, everything we do becomes more critical.  Transparency is going to become more and more important, and if we're hyping something that doesn't ring true, it's going to damage the brand the lose creditability.  We can't continue to do what we've always done if we want to survive and even grow.

Front Toward Enemy

When it comes to explaining new or unusual concepts to people, I sometimes fail. It seems so clear in my head, and yet I'm having trouble getting it out of my mouth. That's when I remember to keep of simple.

A lot of people use the "Keep It Simple Stupid" principle, and it's a good one. I've used it in the past myself. Then I found something easier for me, something that helps me to be as clear and precise as possible.

But before we go there, I feel the need to explain what a Claymore mine is. It's a small defensive weapon that has been around since Viet Nam at least. You anchor it to the ground, and use a trip wire or beam to set it off. Seems like a no-brained, right? Well I find of very interesting that each one comes with the instructions, " Front Towards Enemy.". Yes there were people putting them backwards. So the military took no chances, and put instructions on each one. That's my mental key phrase to keep it simple. There's no doubt how to use it now. Get it wrong, and someone dies.

So when you're trying to explain something and having a hard time getting the message across, just remember the elegant simplicity of "Front Toward Enemy."

When Being Good Is Bad

Consider this: there are two morning shows in a city, both of which have been there for two years.

You listen to each, but while they're both good, one has a talent who seems a little rough and less polished.

Then you look at the ratings, and see that the less polished guy as almost double the audience. How can that be?

Welcome to the world of being distinctive. It's important to be "good," but that sense of being tactically correct, even enjoyable, isn't enough to win any more. The strategy of being distinctive - different in an obvious sense - is more important than ever. You're fighting for share of mind, and beyond the 3,000-4,000 advertising messages per day, these tough economic times mean attention for other things.

So being distinctive is more important than ever. If a talent, or even your station overall, isn't distinctive, a stand-out, a "Purple Cow," they can be good, but not enough to noticed, and not in a way to be "sticky."

How distinctive are you or your station? Does it jump off the dial?

Or is it the background buzz of being good yet unremarkable?

More Than A Slogan

"If you do build a great experience, customers tell each other about that. Word of mouth is very powerful."
Jeff Bezos

Have you listened to your imaging lately?  Over the weekend I got an email from my friend an colleague Scott Michaels including this:

"While driving through Sandusky, Ohio this morning I saw a church sign that read: The "New" First Baptist.  Stop in this Sunday and try our "positive new sound",  A perfect spot for your family!"  Scott wondered if someone from radio had started at that church.

Now that would be funny if it weren't so close to home.  We want listeners to talk to each other about us, but what we tend to focus on in our imaging is ourselves.  Very, very rarely is there imaging on-air that inspires conversation, let alone engagement.  

One of the best ways to get people talking about the station is to PROVE, to demonstrate what you've said in your imaging.  It's shameful to admit, but one reason that will create talk is that most brands are so bad about proving their promise that consumers have low expectations.  Who believes anything advertising says any more?

If you were to write a statement about your station an put it up on a reader board somewhere, what would it say?  Would it be worth repeating, or would it be another advertising claim without proof?

Change Is Happening

"I cannot say whether things will get better if we change; what I can say is that they must change if they are to get better." - Georg C. Lichtenberg

So many people want a written plan for the future, or assurance what they're going to do will work, or they try to copy someone else because the tactic worked there. Anything to be safe.

But safe rarely works, because the future isn't a safe place. It's a wild place where innovation rules and safety kills.

A few of we crazy people embrace this new world with the understanding that the future is happening now, whether we like of or not. That understanding makes the difference.

Radio has its problems, but if we look forward and not backwards we'll be able to see the innovations that are our future.

But we must be careful about the newest profanity, monitize.

I read recently about the birth of radio, where a few crazy people started the industry with no idea how to make money with it. Instead they focused on creating a product people would want to buy. Sound familiar, a little like the digital world? If those early crazy innovators had started with trying to find a way make money first we might not have had a radio industry.

Product first, money next. Innovation first, monitize second.

The New Pareto Rule

This is more of an editorial today than an observation. You remember editorials, those commentaries GM's and owners used to do when they were passionate about something?

I was reading another blog recently that was advising broadcaster that of they need to cut 10% of jobs to save 90% of jobs, they should do it. As tough as that comment is, I agree with it. Even the idea of saving 80% by eliminating 20% makes sense, as long as they're the right 20%. But cutting 80% of the jobs that produce creativity-I'm not so sure about how smart that is.

Of course I don't have an MBA from a business school, but it seems to me the talent is what makes one station different and special, and generates loyalty, it's not a good thing to cut. If programmers provide the big picture creative difference, and coach the talent, it seems like they fall into that "good investment" category too. Further, eliminating good salespeople is just bizzare, because they create the revenue.

What it seems we've done is sacrifice 80% of the jobs in radio to save the 20% held by corporate people. How does that make sense when so few corporate people generate loyalty or income?

The answervis found in one or more of these factors:

1. Many of those corporate people have the same last name.
2. Many of those corporate people have never managed a successful radio station.
3. Many of those corporate people aren't in the radio business, they're in the stock market business.
4. Many of those corporate people can't grasp the concept of being effective vs. being efficient.
5. Many of those corporate people disguise greed as " shareholder value," considering how much of the stock they own.
6. Many of those corporate people only carr about themselves, and have no sense of responsibility about their employees.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. We need corporate leaders, not corporate managers. Radio isn't dead and they can't kill it, but the managers among them keep trying. Not everyone in corporate land is like this, thank God we still have a few who are operators instead of accountants.

However, no corporate official of a radio company can take pride with what they've done with revenue since 2000, or the value of their stock, or the value of their radio stations. And maybe that's the problem. They're trying to squeeze the industry, even to death, because they have no pride, only greed.

The Pareto Rule came about when a guy named Pareto noted that 80% of the wealth of Italy was held by 20% of the population. Maybe it's not a new version of the rule after all.

Being True To Yourself

"Don't let anyone tell you that you have to be a certain way. Be unique." - Melissa Etheridge

Found this on the back of the managers card in Cupertino:

Starbucks Mission Statement

To establish Starbucks as the premier purveyor of the finest coffee in the world while maintaining our uncompromising principles as we grow.

The following six guidelines will help us measure the appropriateness of our decisions.

1. Provide a great work environment and treat each other with respect and dignity.

2. Embrace Diversity as an essential component in the way we do business.

3. Apply the highest standards of excellence to the purchasing, roasting, and fresh delivery of our coffee.

4. Develop enthuiastcally satisfied customers all of the time.

4. Contribute positively to our communities all of the time.

5. Recognize that profitability is essential to our future success.

What do you think?

Well, I was dissapointed, because this is so generic and unremarkable that it doesn't match the Starbucks I know and love.

The person preparing our drinks was a much better representative when he asked, "Would you like an extra shot at no charge."

Strategies and mission and vision are all important, but only if you reflect what makes you special.