In 2014, when Edison Research released its first Share of Ear survey results, broadcast radio controlled 52% of all time spent with audio among 13+ listeners. For some within the industry, there might have been an expectation that the number would have been well higher in the past, but radio’s share actually grew in the second report .
That trend didn’t last. In April, the most recent public Share of Ear data showed listening to “AM/FM radio” at 36%. In July, another data release showed broadcast radio at 20% among 13-22-year-olds, trailing both streaming music (37%) and music videos on YouTube (23%).
As an radio advocate, I am excited about the 10% increase in listening levels from an anticipated change in Nielsen’s listening threshold that will grant quarter-hour listening credits based on three minutes of monitored PPM listening, not five. I’m also hopeful for what that change might do for formats based in current music, especially CHR and R&B/Hip-Hop, the latter of which never rebounded from the switch to PPM 15 years ago.
As with the Voltair-driven gains of a decade ago, the extra AQH generated by the new rule won’t change how people are using radio as much as make sure broadcasters get credit for the listening taking place now. That’s great. There’s no need for radio’s many interconnected challenges to be further exacerbated by measurement issues. I hope a projected 24%-more audience delivery will indeed improve radio’s relationship with advertisers.
But I want to reverse the trend line, too. Specifically, I want broadcasters to think about what would help rebuild radio’s Share of Ear. After a decade, broadcast radio’s 36% SOE is, at least among 13-plus, still larger than any competing choice. (We also have to consider that declining SOE could reflect new listening being created by other media, not just less radio listening.) But being “still the biggest single piece” isn’t something that allows over-leveraged broadcasters to be their best. Reclaiming SOE could impact how advertisers feel about radio and, as important, how we feel about ourselves.
Share of Ear services multiple constituencies. Podcasters regularly receive headlines about their industry’s growth. Westwood One’s Pierre Bouvard uses SOE data to make the “still the biggest piece” argument. Recently, Barrett Media’s Keith Berman complained about WW1 “cherry picking” the data to emphasize radio’s strength against the ad-supported piece of streaming services, but ignoring streaming’s overall inroads. I’ve pondered those same questions, but WW1 is absolutely right to demand that advertisers look at only where their message will actually run, rather than creating a halo for Spotify or other streamers based on, well, “vibes.”
But since those vibes still shake our world, broadcasters should consider how to not just better credit existing listening but create more usage. To view that as an unattainable goal is to confirm outsiders’ view of radio as the thing once listened to until something better came along.
I have said recently that if I could focus radio’s attention on only one thing, it would be consistently reducing spotload. It was based, in part, on the notion that only those choices involving existing cume were a realistic option. (WW1 believes that the three-minute rule will finally motivate radio to run more-frequent-but-shorter stopsets.) But what would create additional listening and listeners?
Marketing. If the gains prompted by a change in measurement improve our fortunes among advertisers, there are many things I’d hope for — more salespeople and restaffing on-air talent chief among them. But I also hope any revenue gains lead to increased marketing at the station level. And while recent attempts to market “radio” as a whole have often been clunky, it has still occurred to me that both R&B or Hispanic broadcasters have a story to tell in many markets on the sheer volume of their choices and might consider joint efforts. In that regard, our radio-aggregator apps are marketing too, when they’re done well.
Providing Choice. Although playlists and podcasts proliferate, radio’s circumstances cause it to take options away from the audience. The trick bag is clear — the 1.5 share that WCBS-AM ended with may not have made sticking with all-News viable, but in Market No. 1, that still represents a lot of listening that, at least in the first month, did not obviously accrue to sister WINS. If New York does not have Alternative or full-market Country, that listening no longer has to go to a second FM choice. Repatriating that listening matters, too. That’s another reason to better organize and market our apps — they allow every market to offer every format.
Reinforce “radio.” This one we can do for free on our own air. It can only help for listeners to consciously realize that they are listening to radio. After a decade of treating even our most-loved stations as audio brands that just happen to be on AM/FM, maybe it is time to remind people that they are listening to “Z100 Radio” or “K-Earth 101 Radio” wherever they happen to be hearing it. Edison already accrues that listening to AM/FM regardless of platform, but I still believe that asking users to remember that they are enjoying radio right now would make a difference in self-reporting and evangelizing.
The new generation of listeners. They’re not the ones who grew up with radio and drifted away. Theirs is a more benign neglect. What stations created for them would sound like is a column unto itself. (It would have to begin with asking what they want, which radio doesn’t.) But marketing radio, providing choice, and prompting listeners to report that the radio in their parents’ car was something they enjoyed, not merely endured, will make a difference with young listeners, too.
It is encouraging to think that radio’s 10% boost could lead to an improved advertiser relationship that makes it possible to reinvest in the product and create even more listening. It is concerning to think that radio will consider that 10% boost to be “mission accomplished.” There is also the specter of PPM-era programming tactics, where we cared only about creating more brief-listening occasions and perhaps made that a self-fulfilling prophecy. I hope the Nielsen adjustment is a game-changer for radio, but it won’t be “game over.”
This story first appeared on radioinsight.com