Michael Harrison is the founder and publisher of Talkers Magazine, a trade industry publication related to talk radio in United States. It is referred to as “The Bible of Talk radio” since its inception (1990).Michael, a radio broadcasting innovator, is regarded as the most captivating and spirited personalities in the radio biz. Apart from being an editor, columnist, consultant, talk show host, producer and an owner of a radio station, Michael has been at the core of many of the most electrifying radio revolutions of the past 30+ years. Talkers Magazine serves the entire “Talk Media Industry” including broadcast talk radio and television, cable news/talk television, as well as the new talk media delivered via the internet, podcasting and satellite radio.
Here’s the second installment of the informative interview of radio maverick Michael Harrison taken by Marsha Friedman, CEO of EMSI. Let’s dive again into the reflective insights of Michael Harrison to gain further nuggets regarding changing landscape of talk radio, how these changes will revolutionize the industry as a whole and how Talk Media Industry can be used as an effective marketing strategy for promoting your business.
Please click here to read Part 1 of the interview.
Marsha Friedman: First off, what effect do you think the new Arbitron Personal People Meters will have on talk radio?
Michael Harrison: I think that Arbitron is having a difficult time rating radio accurately. It is not their fault, it’s just down to the fact that radio is almost impossible to rate accurately. It’s so large, mysterious, idiosyncratic, fractionalized, unstable and spread out in so many different directions. There are so many things going on at any given moment that there are numerous ways of slicing and dicing the ratings for specific target audiences. Thus, there are lots of ways of being number one in something. Also, it’s so unwired, meaning there’s no way of really attaching a meter to the reality of the act of listening to the radio without interfering with how a person listens to the radio. All of that combined makes it almost impossible to accurately rate radio.
The diary method worked for a long time, although it was extremely inaccurate. There was a huge “guesstimate” element involved in terms of a margin-of-error and it was very chancy depending on many factors: who got the diary, how it was distributed, and even if the person could recall what they listened to. Everybody in the business knew that it wasn’t a very good method, but the diary method was geared to dealing with the mom-and-pop culture of radio that existed before corporate consolidation and everybody had a stake in it.
You heard broadcasters say things like, “Well, it’s not a good system, but it’s the only system we have, so we have to live with it.” But in corporatized radio that doesn’t cut it anymore, especially since we’re in a highly technical era where people want exact numbers. They want specifics and they want them now. The whole diary method being old and last quarter just doesn’t cut it anymore. The problem with the People Meter goes back to what I said before about radio. It’s so difficult to track that in order for Arbitron to do it truly accurately from a standpoint of mathematical science, they have to have so many units out there and painstakingly monitor the distribution of these units – which would make it nearly impossible for them to make any money in doing it. So, that’s why they keep having these fits and starts and different factions complaining that it’s not accurate, that it’s not fair. Of course, Arbitron won’t admit this… and I can’t really blame them. They are doing the best they can.So to answer your question, they have a lot of work ahead of them and there are a lot of problems that are deeper than Arbitron can really be responsible for. What are the big problems facing terrestrial radio as we enter into the 21st Century? A big one is the fact it’s almost impossible to rate accurately.
Marsha Friedman: You say it is nearly impossible to rate accurately Michael, but do you see a better solution in sight?
Michael Harrison: Well, I don’t really see much of a better way to do it because you can’t attach a wire to everybody’s radio in their car and at home to really be able to monitor accurately. We have to come to grips with the situation and deal with it honestly. We have to have better salesman in radio, better account executives that go out and educate their clients as to how to really buy radio. We have to educate the agencies because you can’t just sell PPM and radio by the numbers. It’s not good for radio or the clients, only the agencies because it makes their lives simple. Cost per point should just be one element of the marketing equation based on the premise that it is a guess at best.
There has to be a massive education as to the qualitative nature of radio beyond just a quantitative nature of radio, and that burden falls on the shoulders of the marketing departments of radio stations. Clients out there also need to be educated and demand more of their ad agencies. Putting money out there based upon cost per point is not going to give them the effectiveness for their dollar that they seek.
Even deeper, as we enter the age of the Internet, you cannot talk about the future of radio without talking about the future of the Internet. We’re going to reach a point where, because people will be able to find whatever they’re looking for using search engines, the nature of the programming will define the nature of the audience. If you’re doing something either on the radio or the Internet that people want to hear, see or consume, common sense will indicate that you’ve got an audience. And the key is for us in the marketing world to understand the nature of the programming will be defining the audience. If you build it, they will come. But if you build it and they don’t come, it’s because they didn’t want it or need it. I guess, simply put, radio sales people have got to sell the idea of common sense.
Marsha Friedman: In this electronic age, what do you think that terrestrial radio needs to do to survive?
Michael Harrison: For terrestrial radio to survive it needs to have the best programming available anywhere, and that programming has to be exclusive to AM and FM radio. If they stream on the Internet based upon the current conventional wisdom that people will hear it on the Internet and thus go back to listen to the radio…they’re not going to. Once they’re listening on the Internet, they have no reason to go back to the AM or the FM dials.
They should create different programming for the Internet and leave their best programming, or their real meat and potatoes, on the AM and the FM dials. On their Internet site, the people will hear clips, excerpts, cutting room floor stuff, special programs which will compel them to go back to their AM or FM radio to hear the station itself.
That’s the only answer. The current model of streaming your programming, although in the short term it gives your advertisers and your brand more exposure (which is a good thing), but in the long run it’s quickening the demise of the AM and the FM channel having any value whatsoever. But because corporate radio lives in a world of quarterly reports, there is the irresistible urge and pressure to sell the future out for immediate gain.
Marsha Friedman: Do you propose this to save their lives or just prolong the lives of the AM and FM stations?
Michael Harrison: I want to point out that this is only a measure that will prolong the life of AM and FM. It will not extend it indefinitely. The only thing that AM and FM can do today that makes sound business sense is to prolong their life an extra few years because I think the handwriting is on the wall. I don’t believe that AM and FM can survive for very long one way or the other in the wake of the Internet. The Internet is going to continue to change everything. These websites that we now consider to be adjuncts to the radio station, or promotional vehicles for the radio, will actually replace the radio station. And, they’re going to do so a lot quicker than we realize.
Marsha Friedman: Wow. So Michael, what happens to the whole terrestrial radio industry?
Michael Harrison: It moves to the Internet and becomes bigger and better than ever before. It becomes more diverse. It becomes multi-channeled. It becomes infinite in terms of its real estate, inventory and creative ability. It becomes unfettered and unrestrained by FCC regulations. It will be superior. Today’s AM and FM radio station will evolve into tomorrow’s “media station” – a broadband superstation, if you will. The only parties that have anything to lose by this transition are the people who have serious money invested in the licenses.
Marsha Friedman: So what you are saying is that in the future you won’t need licensing?
Michael Harrison: No, you don’t need a license to be a broadcaster in this new era that’s unfolding. What you need is to have a product that people want to hear, and not only will they hear it; they will also look at it and read it. Again, I predict that we’re going to see the rise of what I call a media station which will be oriented to audio, video or to text. It’s going to replace the radio and television stations, magazines and newspapers.
For example, the media station of The New York Times will be oriented to text because its history is that it has writers. The heir to WABC-AM will be a media station oriented to audio because it is the heir to great speakers, talkers. The media stations of the big television stations will be video oriented, again because their roots are in video.
The only difference is that they will all have elements of each other. They’ll be no such thing as what I call “monomedia” – media that exist independently of each other with special appliances necessary to receive them such as “radios” and “television sets” or “CD players” and “DVD players.” Audio-only in this new environment will seem archaic because the appliance that you’re listening to it on now has a screen. And will the screen be blank? Of course not, you’ve gotta put something on this screen, and it doesn’t mean that you have to have a television show. It just means that there will be a video accompaniment to whatever it is that you’re presenting in an audio way.
For example, say you are interviewing an author of a new book. While the author is being interviewed on the radio, people who are consuming this on the media station will also have a chance to see a picture of the author, a picture of the book cover, maybe a coupon that they could print out, maybe extensive information about the subject in text form that they could download and print out and on and on. We are adding to the dimensions that we’re playing with and this requires intelligence and abstract reasoning. It’s a completely new paradigm and it’s unfolding before our very eyes. My educated guess is that within 10 years it’s going to be a completely different landscape.
And the only thing standing between websites being an accompaniment or an extension of 20th Century media (radio and television stations) is a couple more clicks of the technological evolution towards cars having Internet radio in them and video monitors being standard equipment. In other words, cars being completely Wi-Fi’d and people being able to click on any of an infinite number of media stations with the same ease they can now turn on a radio or television station.
Marsha Friedman: I had another question about the quality of weekend programming for radio stations. We’re seeing far less radio infomercials being produced and time being bought which certainly affects the revenues of the radio stations. But also you have the issue of the quality of weekend programming being so inferior. How do you see all of that playing out?
Michael Harrison: Well, I think that it’s self-defeating for radio stations to have to broker time to inferior programming on their precious airwaves in order to make money which goes back to what I said before about selling out the future for immediate survival. Unfortunately, the reason they are forced to do this is because of the problems they are having selling spots and advertising. So sadly they have to resort to a method of generating revenue that at one time was considered embarrassing. It would behoove the stations to be as selective as possible in their choice of brokered shows and help their clients produce as decent a product as possible. Not likely to happen, though.
Marsha Friedman: I remember back in the early 90′s when I first got into business, there were a few stations that brokered time. Boy has that changed!
Michael Harrison: Correct, correct. This is an unfortunate thing, but I understand why they’re doing it because we’re in a period of time when we’re seeing the decline of the radio spot as a workable unit of measurement. It’s getting harder and harder to sell these things and as a result, they have to do whatever they have to do to survive. But again, it’s killing the viability of radio and its future unless, of course, they put good shows on.
I have to say out of fairness, there are a percentage of brokered shows out there that are actually very good. It is not a majority percentage, but they do exist. So let’s not paint all brokered shows as being bad. That’s one. Two, there are a lot of shows out there that are not brokered but are still paying to get on and that’s called compensation where the syndicators are paying the stations, not the stations paying the syndicators, but the syndicators paying the stations to get on. They’re calling it by the more positive term “compensation” because it’s more mainstream well-known talent than your local chiropractor promoting his practice. But it’s still a form of brokered show.
So, again, it comes down to the fact that terrestrial radio is having a terribly difficult time generating revenue via traditional advertising sales and this ties back into the discussion we had earlier about the difficulty in getting accurate ratings and selling this product quantitatively in a marketplace that understands radio has serious, serious problems.
Without quality content there can be no future for AM and FM radio. It can’t be because you can get better stuff on the Internet. And then as soon as the Internet is a few notches more accessible and ultimately ubiquitous – it’s over. Ah, but out of the ashes of good ol’ 20th century terrestrial radio will rise the phoenix of exciting, unlimited media station broadcasting – and what a wondrous scene that will be!
Thanks Marsha Friedman via
Michael Harrison is the founder and publisher of Talkers Magazine, a trade industry publication related to talk radio in United States. It is referred to as “The Bible of Talk radio” since its inception (1990).Michael, a radio broadcasting innovator, is regarded as the most captivating and spirited personalities in the radio biz. Apart from being an editor, columnist, consultant, talk show host, producer and an owner of a radio station, Michael has been at the core of many of the most electrifying radio revolutions of the past 30+ years. Talkers Magazine serves the entire “talk media industry” including broadcast talk radio and television, cable news/talk television, as well as the new talk media delivered via the internet, podcasting and satellite radio.
Here’s an exclusive piece of conversation between Talk Radio Pioneer, and Founder ofTalkers Magazine. (Referred to as “The Bible of Talk Radio” by Business Week Magazine) and Marsha Friedman, CEO of Event Management Services, Inc.,(EMSI). Let’s delve into the insights and experiences shared by the radio maverick:
Marsha Friedman: Do you believe stations will eventually phase out guest interviews in favor of caller-driven shows?
Michael Harrison: No, I think the opposite: guest driven shows will be bigger than caller driven shows. Caller shows are already past their prime in terms of it being a novelty that people can call in. You know, in the early 90s we had this whole idea that talk radio was the electronic town hall of the nation; the people’s forum and their voice. There was something refreshing about that. But, in an era of everybody having their own website, their own blog, their Facebook and MySpace page, it’s no big deal anymore.
From our research, I find most people want to hear an interesting guest who is bringing new information to the table, rather than hearing what Joe in Brooklyn has to say about the same thing that Mary in Queens just commented on.
We’re going to see the guest format come back, but when it returns the guest will need to be a “new kind of guest”: one that is really schooled in the art of being a guest. The guest will need to be competitive with his or her subject and eloquent in their presentation because the competition for guests is going to get increasingly intense. Basically, if you aren’t good…you won’t get on.
Marsha: You mentioned the importance of being “schooled” at the art of being a guest and I honestly couldn’t agree with you more. But, in your expert opinion, why do you feel it’s so vital for talk radio guests to be trained before they are interviewed on the air?
Michael Harrison: When considering that we live in a sound bite society and suffer from a national epidemic of attention deficit disorder, you really have to know how to get your point across as quickly as possible, without any extraneous embellishment. And there is a tremendous art to that. Those who are able to master this art will be more effective in the 21st Century than those that don’t.
I know this is true because I do interviews on radio and TV as well with newspaper journalists all the time. One of the reasons they tend to use me a lot is because I’m able to answer their questions in one or two sentences when the camera is on or the microphone is open.
It’s important to train people in how to use the exposure that talk radio provides. First off, it’s your one shot on air to sell a book or product – so you have to be good. Secondly, the benefits of being a quality guest could make you into a “go-to person.”
With this status you could be asked to come back to that same station three, four, five times in the next 6 months even after you’re not selling your book anymore.
So you’re not only effectively selling your product, you’re selling yourself as a go-to guy to be added to their Rolodex. And being in the Rolodex of talk radio producers is the way to get the most benefit from having a good performance.
Marsha: Michael, what would you tell someone who is new to talk radio about the value it has in promoting a book, product or service?
Michael Harrison: Being a guest in the media, a talking head is a wonderful, wonderful way to get your message across. But it’s got to be timely. It’s got to be something that people want to hear about. It’s got to relate to the issues of the day, to the news of the minute.
I think that any organization which has an agenda they want to promote, a product they want to sell, an idea that they want to get across, or a profile they want to raise – they have to have talk radio and its cousins, meaning internet radio and cable news TV, in the mix.
It allows them to become part of the talk universe that the active consumer today is so plugged into.
Marsha: Speaking of active consumers, you do a research project every year about the demographics of the talk radio audience. What are your findings on the quality of the talk radio listening audience?
Michael Harrison: We have a feature on our website called the Talk Radio Research Project, and once a year we update it in terms of the breakdown of the audience, qualitatively. I strongly advise people to take a look at it because it’s highly detailed and there’s a lot of interesting statistics that we’ve uncovered over the years.
But, for the most part, I believe that talk radio audiences are the most active consumers of all things. They are the most likely people to have voted in the last election and to vote in the next election. They’re the most likely people to go and buy a book. They’re the most likely people to go out and even buy a record. They’re the most likely people to go see a movie. And, they’re the most likely people to buy products.
They listen to commercials more than people who listen to music radio. This has been borne out by research. The talk radio audience when compared to other mass media audiences are more likely to have been in college longer. They’re more affluent. They’re more educated. They’re the people you want to reach as they’re one of the best upper demographics.
So if you want to reach people 35+, you can’t go any place better than talk radio, either as an advertiser, or as a medium to promote your product. This is a very desirable market for any business.
Marsha: That’s so true. Finally Michael, in your opinion, does the number of listeners really have a direct impact on the amount of sales opportunities an interview can generate?
Michael Harrison: First off, it’s almost impossible to rate radio stations. So if anybody wants to know how many people are listening, they are going to be told a distortion or inaccuracy. The answer is nobody knows.
If you are new to the talk radio game, don’t get hung up on how many people are listening. If you have 10 listeners and all 10 buy your book or products that day, you’ve done a good job. Just go out there and do it.
###
So that was such a sage advice from someone who has been involved in marketing and PR for too many years. As Michael mentioned so clearly, radio listeners are a quality demographic. And, it’s a perfect fit for a wide range of consumer and business topics, because of its very nature. In addition to general interest shows, you have a variety of specialized shows ranging from politics, finance, business, health, fitness and food – with a great many of these shows looking for expert guests.
So for all these reasons, Michael suggests, a talk radio campaign, with all the right elements in place, should be one of the most important items in your marketing strategy!
Thanks Marsha Friedman via
We continue with Part 2 of the insightful Interview. Let’s take another dive into the interesting conversation to gain more of Al’s nuggets of marketing wisdom. For those of you who have not read Part 1 of the Interview and may not be familiar with Al Ries here is the link.
Marsha Friedman: Every business person obviously wants to have success. Their long term goals are to be very profitable and growing. However, when the doors need to stay open now, it’s hard to worry about 2 to 5 years from now. What are some of the things one needs to be aware of so that good decisions are made that will support all of their goals?
Al Ries: Short term needs and long term goals can sometimes conflict, and the most important advice I can give in this situation is don’t forget your focus. When it comes to focus, one needs to narrow it, not widen it. My company, Ries & Ries, works with clients all the time looking for ways to narrow their focus and get them out of offering too much stuff. However, many businesses aren’t keen on the idea, because when one narrows their focus they have to drop some product. So what happens in the short term? When you drop a product or service, you’re going to lose some business initially. Who wants to do that? To the average business owner, the thought is “Wait a second, we can’t do that!”
I’ll give you an example. My company was doing some consulting for Burger King. Now, Burger King has twelve hamburgers on their menu. We said to them, “That’s too confusing. Let’s reduce it.” Their reply was, “Oh! We can’t do that.” You see, they know the percentage of sales each one of those 12 products brings in, right? So they think, “If we make it five products, it means we’re going to lose 3.7% of the business.” They look at the numbers and what will happen in the short term, but they don’t look at the long term implication. The implication is when you simplify your product line, you make it easier for consumers to know what you’re selling and you’ll sell more, but not necessarily in the short term.
So “focus” is a long-term concept that can eliminate the short term issues, but you need to start for it to work.
The result of focus is the more you focus the stronger your brand becomes, because you can stand for something. For example, what’s a Chevrolet? I know what a Chevrolet is: it’s a large or small, cheap or expensive, car or truck. If somebody says to you, “I bought a Chevrolet,” not much was said. Did he or she buy a ZR1 for $105,000 or a sub-compact for $13,000? There’s a big difference there. So to say, “I bought a Chevrolet” is saying nothing, because the brand doesn’t stand for anything!
Many, many, many brands today do not stand for anything, because they’re into everything. If you’re into everything, the brand can’t possibly stand for a single thing. Yet what’s the trend in business today? Expand the brand. Why? Because it makes sense! “Well, we want to grow,” they say. “So if you expand the product lineup, you’re going to grow.” That’s logical. But it doesn’t work and that’s the most important thing about marketing. Every single principle of marketing is not necessarily logical and it makes it a very difficult discipline to learn, because almost everything you should be doing doesn’t necessarily make sense, if you look at it from the obvious point of view.
Marsha Friedman: I agree. In the focus section of your book, you also talk about the importance of focusing on one word, phrase or benefit.
Al Ries: Yes and that is where it becomes more important in the long term. Look at brands that have become very, very successful. Invariably they stand for something. Rolex stands for “expensive watch.” My company used to do some telephone interviews and we’d say, “Okay, we’re going to say a brand name and you tell us the first word that comes to your mind.” The highest score ever was Rolex and the word was “expensive.” From a management standpoint you might think that’s not a good word. Let me tell you, that’s a POWERFUL word! That’s what makes the Rolex brand. People buy a Rolex BECAUSE it’s expensive.
Marsha Friedman: You’re correct, it’s a status symbol.
Al Ries: That’s why they don’t buy a Rolex in spite of being expensive, they buy it to show off their success. If Rolex were to sell $1,000 watches, after a while, the brand would be destroyed because it’s not what the brand stands for. It stands for expensive watch in the same sense that Starbucks stands for expensive coffee.
Before Starbucks, if you asked somebody, “What’s a brand name of expensive coffee?” They wouldn’t know. That’s opportunity and yet if you’d have told somebody years ago, “Hey, let’s launch a chain of expensive coffee.” people would ask, “Why would you want to do that?” I mean, who wants to spend more money on coffee? Nobody!
Marsha Friedman: Let me ask you this, Al, and I preface my question by saying I totally agree with the focus concept. But what would you say about companies like, Home Depot? Home Depot’s focus is “Home Improvement,” but they have thousands of brands and products. So how does that work?
Al Ries: Well, to make my point, let’s take Wal-Mart for example. Wal-Mart has more than 150,000 products. But you see, once again, the Wal-Mart brand is built on one word. What is the word? It’s the word, “cheap.” If people want something cheap, they go to Wal-Mart. Now that doesn’t appeal to everybody, does it? No. But “cheap” is a very, very powerful brand provided you’re perceived as the cheapest. K-Mart went bankrupt. Why? Because they tried to emulate Wal-Mart’s strategy, but the consumer saw Wal-Mart as the first cheap store and therefore they own the word “cheap.” Now Target was smart. They said, “Hey, we can’t own ‘cheap’ because Wal-Mart owns it, so we’ll go a little upscale.” There’s a cliché about Target; they’re called Targét (pronounced TAR-ZHAY). Oprah Winfrey said Target was Cheap Chic. It’s a little better design and Target has done well; K-Mart has not.
The same goes for Home Depot. Home Depot was the first home improvement store. Whatever that meant, but to the average person it meant that if you have a project to do, you could go to Home Depot and get everything you need to complete the project (lumber, faucets, nails… you name it). Home Depot is a little like Wal-Mart. They not only sell you the whole package, but they sell it at a very good price. So in a sense, Home Depot is the Wal-Mart for men. For doing projects on Saturdays you go to Home Depot.
Marsha Friedman: So then, if a company says, “Okay, we’ve got a brilliant idea and we know that this is a money-maker. We want to release it.” How would you suggest they release it if you’re saying stay focused on what you have, don’t widen your focus, don’t lose your focus and don’t water down your brand? How would they do it?
Al Ries: Let’s look at Crest. Crest, the first cavity fighting toothpaste on the market. What is Crest today? Well it’s a mouthwash, white strips, electronic toothbrushes, etc; it’s all sorts of stuff. In my opinion, I don’t think that works as well as if they had separate brands for each of these categories. A separate brand for mouthwash, a separate brand for white strips (the teeth whitening stuff) and so forth. But the tendency on the part of many companies, and it’s because it makes sense to them from an economic standpoint, they think, “If we have one brand name and all these products are under one brand name umbrella, we’ll save money on advertising.” It is better to start a new brand and not mess with the established one.
Thanks Marsha Friedman via