ListenerThink

Over the past two decades, the internet has grown to become a video-fast medium we can access almost everywhere, anytime and do almost anything with. It’s been a seismic force impacting the entire media landscape…y’know, the one that we’re still part of.

It’s affected radio, for sure. Time spent online means time away from broadcast FM and AM. Yet the vitality of our medium has been confirmed by how well it has held up in the face of the ‘net monster. Radio continues to reach around 90% of Americans.

Still, at this point, I wondered: Just how important is radio in people’s lives? Where does it stand compared to the internet and other media?

So, in early April, we asked 18-64′s in the U.S. how important the internet and radio are to them, plus TV and newspapers for comparison. Based on 502 telephone interviews, here’s what we learned…

The internet rules over all. Three-fourths rate it a 4 or 5 on our 5-point scale, where 5 means “very important.” After that, radio and TV score essentially the same, with half rating them 4 or 5. (TV does have a small edge in the percentage rating it very important.)

Meanwhile, little more than one-fourth rate newpapers 4 or 5, while nearly a third rate them 1 — that is, “not at all important.”  (Take that to your market’s local advertisers!)

How important is this to you in your life?	‘NET	PAPERS	RADIO	TV
1: NOT AT ALL	7%	30%	11%	11%
2:	5%	19%	16%	12%
3:	12%	23%	23%	25%
4:	18%	12%	24%	22%
5: VERY IMPORTANT	57%	16%	26%	30%
AVERAGE:	4.1	2.7	3.4	3.5

 

From the perspective of age demos, the ‘net has its biggest edge over broadcast media at the young end, as we’d expect. But there is no significant difference between the importance of radio and TV until we get up to 55-64, where TV has the edge. Even among 55-64′s though, radio is significantly more important than newspapers. Here are the average scores:

How important is this to you in your life?	.             18-24	. 25-34	.             35-44	. 45-54	. 55-64
INTERNET	4.3	4.3	4.3	3.8	3.9
NEWSPAPERS	2.3	2.3	2.9	2.8	2.8
RADIO	3.0	3.2	3.5	3.8	3.4
TV	3.1	3.3	3.6	3.7	3.7

It’s no shock that the internet has become the most important medium. After all, the ‘net encompasses all — delivering radio, TV, newspaper content and much much more.

But radio remains a big deal…as important as TV, and much more important than newspapers. By virtue of that alone, radio deserves a bigger share of advertiser dollars than it’s been getting for years.

Even so, if your station isn’t aggressively working on extending its brand to the internet (and mobile devices) it’s time — no,  past time — to get busy!

OK, so the report of radio’s  demise in cars was greatly exaggerated.  Eric Rhoads of Radio Ink has corrected the initial report that automakers plan to drop AM/FM radios from vehicles in the near future.  But something else in his report caught my eye…

Apparently, panelists at the Radio Ink Convergence Conference made comments to the effect of: Young people don’t use radio anymore, and there was extensive research to support lack of interest in radio among youth.

We can all cite data to refute these glaring misconceptions.   But I thought I’d take a fresh look at the situation. So we interviewed 490 18-54 year olds in the U.S. The surveys were conducted from Wednesday through Sunday of last week.

We asked if they were a driver or passenger in a car, truck or SUV in the past week…88% had.  And then we asked them whether they had listened to FM or AM radio while in the vehicle… 86% of them (drivers or passengers) responded “yes.”

And guess what? There are no significant differences by age group. Among 18-24′s, the number is 82%;  among 25-34′s, 89%;  among 35-44′s, 86%;  among 45-54′s, 85%. So, yes, young people do listen to traditional radio in vehicles.

But, we knew that!

 

 

 

Earlier this week, we reported that a strong majority of radio’s top execs are, as a group, optimistic about traditional radio’s future. But that doesn’t mean they’re oblivious to the challenges facing radio, especially, the biggest one…

In our survey of radio general managers, group execs and owners, the challenge from new technology looms large, as you would expect.  When we asked them to volunteer the “single biggest threat” to traditional radio, more than one in five named the internet, smartphones and digital media in general, including in-car internet access.

Keep in mind that these were responses volunteered by radio execs — top-of-mind, unaided.  When we delve deeper, in-car internet looms much larger…

We asked them to rate seven traditional radio competitors as a “big threat,” a “small threat,” or “no threat.”  And we found that, by a wide margin, they think  in-car internet is the threat to traditional radio:

	% naming “a big threat”
Internet Access in Cars	41%
Pandora	18%
Sirius/XM Satellite Radio	13%
iPods/mp3 Players	13%
Podcasts	8%
iHeartRadio	7%
YouTube	6%

Perhaps just as “impressive,” another 42% consider in-car internet as a small threat to traditional radio. So, altogether, 83% consider it a threat. That exact percentage holds even for execs who say they’re “optimistic” about radio’s future (though fewer of them — still 32% though — consider it a big threat).

What this all means is: Even if you’re optimistic about radio’s future, you know it’s facing a tough battle.  And that battle will be on wheels.

 

 

I gotta wear shades??? That’s the attitude a strong majority of radio execs express when it comes to the future of their industry…

At the end of last month, we conducted online surveys with radio station general managers, group executives and owners in the U.S. and Canada. Among the questions we asked was…

Think about traditional, terrestrial radio…FM and AM radio stations. Would you say that you are OPTIMISTIC or PESSIMISTIC about the future viability — audience share and profitability — of traditional radio overall?

More than two-thirds told us they’re optimistic about the future of radio as we’ve known it:

OPTIMISTIC	69%
PESSIMISTIC	17%
Unsure/Don’t know	14%

Whether optimistic or pessimistic, we asked why…

While too few in our sample to tabulate, the impact of major ownership groups and budget cutbacks were the most common reasons volunteered by the pessimists.

Focusing on the majority, exactly half volunteered traditional radio’s LOCAL edge as a source of their optimism:

WHY are you optimistic about the future viability of traditional radio?
Its Local/Community Advantage	50%
It Evolves/Reinvents Itself to Meet Challenges	14%
It Can Extend Brands to Digital/New Media	11%
It Works/Gets Results for Advertisers	10%
It’s Free	8%
It’s Portable/Mobile/Everywhere	7%
Other	33%
Don’t Know/No Response	4%

(Note that respondents could give more than one reason for their optimism, which is why the percentages add up to more than 100%.)

I find the #2 reason given for optimism interesting as well. Part of radio’s legend is how it adjusted, survived and thrived after the ascendance of television in the ’50s, when many thought TV would mean the death of radio. Whether radio’s “survivor” quality will keep it going in the digital era remains to be seen.

Now, I’ll admit to being initially surprised at the level of optimism among radio execs and owners. After all, what we hear about radio’s future from some sources isn’t at all positive.

But maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised. Consider who we’re talking about. These are people who work in radio and are invested in it. Their job is to sell radio…to be upbeat about it! Perhaps the bigger story is that 31% aren’t optimistic!

I’ll leave that for you to ponder. But one thing I can tell you is that even if they are optimistic, that doesn’t mean radio execs are oblivious to the challenges traditional radio faces.

Check in here on Thursday to learn more…

 

Few listeners actually participate in radio contests on a regular basis. That’s OK…We’re in the LISTENER business, not the “player” business! And, fortunately, many enjoy listening to contests…

From our recent online survey on contests, we see that that the majority enjoy listening even if they don’t play:

You enjoying listening to contests, even if you don’t participate
1: DISAGREE A LOT	10%
2:	21%
3:	37%
4: AGREE A LOT	24%
Don’t know	6%
AVERAGE:	2.8

What makes contests enjoyable to listeners???  For three-fourths of them, it’s the ability to play along…

You enjoy listening to contests you can play along with in your head.		You enjoy listening to contests that are a mental challenge.
1: DISAGREE A LOT	7%	1: DISAGREE A LOT	6%
2:	11%	2:	10%
3:	45%	3:	45%
4: AGREE A LOT	30%	4: AGREE A LOT	33%
Don’t know	5%	Don’t know	4%
AVERAGE:	3.1	AVERAGE:	3.1

The option to participate vicariously in mentally-challenging contests is one big reason why shows like Jeopardy or Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? have enjoyed huge success. Viewers can watch, challenge themselves and feel smarter than the contestants onscreen.  Given the right contests, the same principle can apply to radio!

But not all engagement has to be cerebral.  Listeners can also vicariously (or actually) compete for prizes that are outside the ordinary:

You enjoy listening to contests that offer fantasy prizes — like exotic vacations, shopping sprees, backstage passes, etc..
1: DISAGREE A LOT	7%
2:	13%
3:	37%
4: AGREE A LOT	34%
Don’t know	6%
AVERAGE:	2.8

Contests like these tap the imagination, engaging the mind in an entirely different way.  Listeners can visualize escaping to a secluded tropical island, or hanging out with The Stones backstage, or having $20,000 to spend any way they want at Neiman Marcus, etc. etc. etc.

That’s the point: Just as successful talk show hosts focus on what will inform, entertain and engage listeners, rather than the callers, radio programmers need to take the very same tack with contests.  Make contests special…not perfunctory, routine or trite.  And when you do, think about how they’re going to engage the listeners, even those who never try to win!

 

 

One surprising finding of our recent online research on contests is that a majority (65%) of 18-64 radio listeners have tried to win one…at least once. But only 2% actually tried on the day they took our survey. Fortunately, our research uncovered a powerful way to boost participation…

We asked listeners how likely they would be to participate given various means of entry — from “not at all likely” to “very.” And website and email entry top the list:

How likely would you be to participate in a radio station contest if you could enter…	.       ”Very Likely”
ON A WEB SITE	59%
BY EMAIL	59%
BY TEXT MESSAGE	39%
BY PHONE	38%
ON A SMARTPHONE APP	26%
BY REGULAR MAIL	23%

Now, let’s put these numbers in perspective. Do I think 59% really are very likely to enter using email??? No! Respondents usually over-emphasize what they might do in a hypothetical situation. It’s easier to click off on “very likely” to email than it is to actually send the email. (And these are internet respondents, so it makes sense they’d be more web-oriented than average.)

But even given these caveats, what counts here is the big numbers for web and email entry and their big margin over  other means. It makes sense.  After all, it’s almost as easy to enter a station site or send email as click on “very likely.” (And it’s a whole lot easier and less time-consuming than trying to be the 100th caller)!

What’s especially impressive is the impact of online entry among those who have never tried to win a contest. These listeners put even more distance between website and email and other modes of entry:

How likely would you be to participate in a radio station contest if you could enter…	.       ”Very Likely”
ON A WEB SITE	45%
BY EMAIL	40%
BY TEXT MESSAGE	25%
ON A SMARTPHONE APP	19%
BY PHONE	18%
BY REGULAR MAIL	16%

So, the bottom line is that broadening contest entry methods to include the internet has significant potential for expanding the pool of potential participants, even reaching listeners who have never entered a contest before.  It’s all good!

The only “bad” is that way to many stations are overlooking the upside of online contest entry as another way to interact with listeners.

I‘ve never pushed contesting as a panacea for stations. A good contest can’t make a bad station successful, long-term. Still, contests are much more in the ballpark of traditional radio than satellite or pure-play online stations, so I’m especially interested… Could contests be another weapon  in radio’s battle with the upstarts???

To find out, we did an online survey earlier this month with 608 18 to 64 year olds who had cumed an FM or AM station in the past week.  We probed a lot of issues around contesting, which we’ll explore over the next few weeks. But first, let’s get straight to the “bottom line”…

Yes, contests can be a real edge for a station, and for traditional radio in general.

It’s true that contests have no impact on the majority of listeners’ interest in a station, or how much they listen to it.  But there remains a substantial percentage that are impacted by contests, and in an overwhelmingly positive way:

Overall, how does a radio station’s contest affect how INTERESTING it is to listen to?
MORE Interesting	40%
LESS Interesting	3%
NEITHER More nor Less	56%
Don’t Know	1%

And overall, how does a radio station’s contest affect HOW MUCH YOU LISTEN TO IT?
Listen to it MORE	34%
Listen to it LESS	2%
Doesn’t Affect You	64%
Don’t Know	1%

So, what this says is: Most listeners won’t be affected by your contest one way or another.  But at least a third will, and that bump comes with minimal downside.

I’m blown away by these numbers. Even if we toss in the requisite “grain of salt,” there’s no conclusion other than contesting can be a very good thing!

And this conclusion is corroborated by listeners’ responses to a number of agree/disagree statements in our survey…

For example, only 11% “agree a lot”  with “Contests are a waste of time”; 28% “disagree a lot.”

Only 8% agree a lot with  ”You’d prefer a station that promises no contests at all”; 32% disagree a lot.

And 12% agree a lot with: “You would listen to a station you don’t like, just for a chance to win its contest”!  While many more (44%) disagree a lot, that’s still an incredibly strong statement on the impact of contests.

Stand by for more in the coming weeks…

When I was a budding young jock in Marinette, Wisconsin, I wanted to be a “star.”  We broadcast from a storefront on Main Street, and I dressed for the part, trying to look cool. Boy, did I have it wrong…

As I’ve since learned, the vast majority of 18-64 listeners prefer stations they can relate to, not look up to!  We found this again in our recent online P1 study.  (For details on methodology, check previous posts.)

When asked, nearly three-fourths think their P1 station is on their level:

Is [station listen to most] more like a person you…

LOOK UP TO ?	19%
ON YOUR LEVEL ?	71%
LOOK DOWN ON ?	2%
Don’t know	8%

There are differences by format, though. Christian station P1s stand out as the exception, with more than half saying their  station is like a person they look up to. With other formats, the differences are just a case of degree.  A notably higher-than-average percentage (but still a minority) of News/Talk and Public Radio station P1s see their station like a person they look up to, while A/C and Rock station P1s are the most “on my level” listeners:

	A/C	CHR	COUN-TRY	NEWS/ TALK	OLDIES/ CL HITS
LOOK UP TO ?	8%	15%	15%	34%	0%
ON MY LEVEL ?	83%	73%	73%	57%	89%
LOOK DOWN ON ?	0%	5%	0%	2%	4%
Don’t know	8%	7%	12%	6%	8%

 

	PUBLIC  /NPR	CHRIST    -IAN	ROCK	SPORTS	URBAN
LOOK UP TO ?	38%	60%	9%	21%	10%
ON MY LEVEL ?	58%	26%	81%	74%	73%
LOOK DOWN ON ?	2%	3%	3%	0%	3%
Don’t know	2%	11%	7%	6%	15%

By the way, you might find it funny that we offered the option of a station like a person listeners “look down on.”  I know I do.  But I learned early in my research career that it’s important to offer respondents balanced options. There’s always some respondents that will take the contrarian view, and this question is no exception.  (I guess looking down on the station you listen to most is one way of building self-esteem!)

 

 

How do P1s perceive their stations?  Of course, they think about their music, news, talk, sports, personalities, etc. But what about the station’s own personality – its “stationality”?  What attributes describe it?

As part of our online P1 research last month, we  ran 40 different words or phrases past 18-64  listeners (732 of them) who named a specific station as the one they “listen to most.” And we asked them whether that word or phrase “describes” or “does not describe” that station.

And what we learned is: the vast majority of listeners attribute a slew of human attributes to the station they listen to most. At the top, 80%+  think the words comfortable, friendly and informed describe their P1 station:

This word or phrase describes the station  I listen to most…
Comfortable	83%
Friendly	82%
Informed	80%
Cheerful	79%
Positive	78%
Confident	78%
Outgoing	77%
Involved	77%
Down-to-earth	75%
Easygoing	74%
Honest	73%
Fun-loving	73%
Enthusiastic	73%
Trustworthy	73%
Cool	72%
Intelligent	70%
Funny	68%
Exciting	67%
Mature	64%
Respectful	64%
Warm	63%
Relaxing	62%
Witty	61%
Caring	60%
Helpful	58%
Outspoken	56%
Trendy	54%
Hip	52%
Family-oriented	50%
Quirky	41%
Serious	40%
Sophisticated	38%
Wacky	37%
Edgy	35%
Authoritative	30%
Unpredictable	30%
Sarcastic	28%
Rebellious	25%
Aggressive	22%
Controversial	20%

That’s among listeners as a whole.  We were also interested in the differences between P1s of major formats.  So we categorized each station’s format based on its ID and market…

We learned that different formats’ P1s see their stations  as more alike than different.  For example, at the top, the vast majority of every format’s P1s see their station as comfortable, friendly, etc.,  to a greater or lesser degree. And (to a greater or lesser degree) a minority of every format’s P1s do not think the station they listen to most as controversial, aggressive, etc.

Still, there are interesting “greater or lesser degrees.” Here’s what scored “notably” (10 or more points) higher or lower than average for each format we analyzed, along with my take:

A/C
Notably higher than average:	None
Notably lower than average:	aggressive, edgy, enthusiastic, exciting, sarcastic
Comment:	As always, defined more by what it’s not than what it is.

 

CHR
Notably higher than average:	cool, edgy, hip, outspoken, quirky, rebellious, sarcastic, trendy, unpredictable, wacky
Notably lower than average:	authoritative, caring, family-oriented, helpful, honest, intelligent, mature, respectful, serious
Comment:	Fun, fashionable and a little flaky.

 

CHRISTIAN
Notably higher than average:	caring, cheerful, comfortable, confident, cool, down-to-earth, easygoing, enthusiastic, family-oriented, friendly, fun-loving, helpful, honest, informed, involved, mature, positive, relaxing, respectful, serious, sophisticated, trustworthy, warm
Notably lower than average:	aggressive, controversial, edgy, quirky, rebellious, sarcastic, unpredictable, wacky
Comment:	These P1s truly love their station! Scores highest for eight of the top 20 attributes.

 

COUNTRY
Notably higher than average:	caring, cheerful, comfortable, down-to-earth, easygoing, exciting, family-oriented, friendly, fun-loving, helpful, honest, positive, relaxing, respectful, trustworthy, warm
Notably lower than average:	aggressive, controversial, edgy, outspoken, rebellious, sarcastic
Comment:	A lot like Christian.

 

NEWS/TALK
Notably higher than average:	aggressive, authoritative, controversial, intelligent, mature, serious, sophisticated
Notably lower than average:	cheerful, comfortable, cool, easygoing, fun-loving, funny, hip,  quirky, relaxing, trendy, wacky, warm
Comment:	The “reality show” of radio.

 

OLDIES/CLASSIC HITS
Notably higher than average:	caring, cheerful, enthusiastic, fun-loving, funny, helpful, honest, relaxing, warm, witty
Notably lower than average:	aggressive, authoritative, controversial, edgy, hip, outspoken, rebellious, sarcastic, serious
Comment:	Looks like that “Good Times, Great Oldies” line was right on target.

 

PUBLIC RADIO/NPR
Notably higher than average:	authoritative, caring, family-oriented, helpful, honest, informed, intelligent, involved, mature, relaxing, respectful, serious, sophisticated
Notably lower than average:	cheerful, cool, enthusiastic, exciting, fun-loving, funny, hip, outspoken, rebellious, trendy, unpredictable, wacky
Comment:	Verypositive image among P1s…like News/Talk, but with more “heart.”

 

ROCK
Notably higher than average:	aggressive, cool, edgy, rebellious, sarcastic, unpredictable
Notably lower than average:	caring, cheerful, family-oriented, helpful, relaxing, respectful, serious, sophisticated, trendy, warm
Comment:	Edgy but not especially trendy…i.e., not about what’s happening now.

 

SPORTS
Notably higher than average:	authoritative, informed, intelligent, outspoken, quirky, witty
Notably lower than average:	caring, down-to-earth, easygoing, sophisticated
Comment:	Smarter and more credible than what I would have expected. Outspoken, quirky…Jim Rome?

 

URBAN
Notably higher than average:	aggressive, cool, edgy, exciting, funny, hip, outgoing, outspoken,  sarcastic, trendy, witty
Notably lower than average:	None
Comment:	Very positive and “with it” image. Scores highest for cool, outspoken, trendy and hip.

 

Finally, here are the formats scoring highest and lowest for each word or phrase:

	HIGHEST:	LOWEST:
Comfortable	Christian (100%)	News/Talk (66%)
Friendly	Christian (97%)	News/Talk (74%)
Informed	Sports (94%)	Urban (73%)
Cheerful	Country, Christian (97%)	News/Talk (51%)
Positive	Christian (92%)	News/Talk, Public/NPR (70%)
Confident	Christian (92%)	A/C (72%)
Outgoing	Urban (88%)	News/Talk (70%)
Involved	Public/NPR (89%)	Rock (70%)
Down-To-Earth	Christian (94%)	Sports (57%)
Easygoing	Country (93%)	Sports (62%)
Honest	Public/NPR (89%)	CHR (60%)
Fun-Loving	Christian (90%)	News/Talk (51%)
Enthusiastic	Oldies/Classic Hits (86%)	A/C (59%)
Trustworthy	Christian (87%)	CHR (66%)
Cool	Urban (89%)	News/Talk (40%)
Intelligent	Public/NPR (92%)	CHR (58%)
Funny	Oldies/Classic Hits (86%)	News/Talk (39%)
Exciting	Urban (81%)	Public/NPR (35%)
Mature	Public/NPR (84%)	CHR (50%)
Respectful	Public/NPR, Christian (89%)	Rock (43%)
Warm	Christian (92%)	Rock (46%)
Relaxing	Christian (84%)	Rock (46%)
Witty	Oldies/Classic Hits (75%)	A/C (57%)
Caring	Christian (86%)	Sports (45%)
Helpful	Christian (89%)	Rock (45%)
Outspoken	Urban (74%)	Public/NPR (41%)
Trendy	Urban (84%)	Public/NPR (27%)
Hip	Urban (94%)	Public/NPR (30%)
Family-oriented	Christian (97%)	Rock (23%)
Quirky	CHR (57%)	Christian (17%)
Serious	Public/NPR (70%)	Rock (26%)
Sophisticated	Public/NPR (66%)	Rock (23%)
Wacky	CHR (52%)	Public/NPR (2%)
Edgy	Rock (50%)	Country (11%)
Authoritative	News/Talk (65%)	CHR (19%)
Unpredictable	Rock (43%)	Christian (11%)
Sarcastic	CHR (46%)	Christian (5%)
Rebellious	Rock  (46%)	Oldies/Classic Hits (7%)
Aggressive	News/Talk  (38%)	A/C (7%)
Controversial	News/Talk (44%)	Christian (6%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In last week’s first report on our P1 research, we found that Christian format P1s have the highest level of preference for their #1 station, while CHR P1s have the lowest. This week, we’ll look at something different — how likely are various formats’ P1s to switch to a new in-format competitor?

To review, we surveyed 18-64 listeners online. We asked them to name the station they “spend the most time listening to,” ending up with 732 respondents who named a specific station. We categorized each station’s format based on its ID and market.

One of the questions we asked them was:

If another radio station in your area began to deliver the same kind of programming as [station listened to most], how likely would you be to listen to it instead of [station listened to most]?

We learned that more than half of Urban station P1s are “very likely” to switch to a new Urban competitor:

	URBAN  P1s
VERY Likely	54%
SLIGHTLY  Likely	28%
UNLIKELY	4%
Don’t know	14%

And Urban’s “very likely” score is far higher than the comparable statistic for other formats’ stations:

VERY LIKELY to listen to new station instead of [station listened to most]…
URBAN	54%
ADULT CONTEMPORARY	38%
PUBLIC RADIO/NPR	37%
CHR	34%
COUNTRY	33%
AVERAGE	33%
ROCK	28%
OLDIES/CLASSIC HITS	27%
SPORTS	27%
NEWS/TALK	26%
CHRISTIAN	14%

The lowest very-likely-to-switch score belongs to Christian station P1s. That follows, given Christian P1s’ level of preference for the station they “listen to most.”

But…Christian station P1′s are not the most unlikely to switch to an in-format competitor! That distinction belongs to News/Talk and Sports P1s. In both groups, 19% are “unlikely”…higher than the comparable statistic for the P1s of  Christian (7%) or any other format’s stations:

	NEWS /TALK P1s	SPORTS  P1s
VERY Likely	26%	27%
SLIGHTLY  Likely	42%	47%
UNLIKELY	19%	19%
Don’t know	12%	7%

 

The listeners I find most interesting in these findings, though, is the Urban P1s. As we reported a week ago, Urban P1s do not have a significantly lower-than-average preference for their #1 station. And yet, the majority of them are very likely to listen to a new Urban station in place of the one they listen to most now! So, what’s up with them?

I have a theory… In past research, we’ve learned than Urban format P1s are more involved with radio than most listeners…more interested in radio. That could explain why they’d be very likely to try a new station delivering the same kind of programming as the one they listen to most now, even if they’re not dissatisfied with it.

It’s easier to understand the “News/Talkers.” As we noted last week, they have a higher-than-average preference for their P1 station. And we now see that they’re tied for most “unlikely” to switch.

Why? Because News/Talk stations’ programming isn’t easily duplicated. News/Talk is, after all, about credibility. It takes years to achieve it and it’s very hard to lose it!

That’s why it would be foolish to launch a News/Talk station into a competitive market and expect it to have any immediate impact. Wouldn’t it…Merlin?