Contrary to what most radio salespeople have been taught, “the immediacy of radio” does not mean, “Give us your commercial order this evening, and we’ll have it on the air at 6 o’clock tomorrow morning.”
The concept of “the immediacy of radio” comes from the fact that radio can cover news as it happens.
It dates back to the days when if some major event occurred, people would automatically turn on the radio because they knew they could learn about that event as it unfolded.
If you routinely accept an order at 4 o’clock in the afternoon for airing the next morning, you are doing two things:
1. You are virtually guaranteeing that your clients do not get their money’s worth, because you are not allowing enough time to do a professional job in creating their advertising.
2. You are training your clients to think of radio as a “last-minute” medium of last resort, rather than as the powerful advertising medium that it can be when used properly.
Here’s something that a lot of radio stations do that always has struck me as…well, dumb:
You don’t want to allow employees, advertisers, etc., to win your contests because doing so would threaten the integrity (perceived or actual) of the contest.
But why would you prohibit someone who works for a competing station from winning?
If a competitor’s employee were to win one of my station’s contests, I’d immediately start running promos highlighting the fact that “While Bob Smith is paid to WORK at Radio X, when he wants to hear the best of today’s hit music he LISTENS to (Our Station).”
And banning family members of anyone who works for a competing station?
So….48-year old Mary Smythe works as a bookkeeper for a local News/Talk station, and her 19-year old son, Matthew, is a loyal listener to my modern rock station. But Loyal Listener Matthew isn’t allowed to win any of our contests??
Why is it that a higher percentage of businesses of questionable integrity do so much better radio advertising than their more “reputable” counterparts?
Let me hasten to add, of course, that I have no reason to believe that “Cash Call” is a shady business or that its reputation is less than pure.
My research did uncover a bunch of consumer complaints about the company, but I haven’t confirmed any of those complaints and have absolutely no hard evidence to suggest that Cash Call is anything other than a fine, honest company that only enriches our society.
On the other hand, I do get a certain feeling about those guys….But it’s just a feeling. Not an allegation of fact.
Anyway, here’s their radio commercial.
The Good Parts
“Some lenders like to advertiser lower than market rates because their salespeople know how to upsell you once you’re on the phone.”
That’s a solid line with which to begin a radio ad. I don’t know about you, but it made me want to hear more.
Have you ever heard a lender refer to the people who answer their phones as “salespeople”? Not “consultants” or “advisors”; salespeople. I’m pretty sure that’s a first.
And toward the end of the commercial, they refer to the people who answer Cash Call’s phones as “salespeople,” too — just “not that slick” as the competition’s.
Selling Is Educating.
This spot educates:
“By law, lenders must quote a rate and APR…”
The Weaker Parts
They gave us two pieces of interesting information:
1. Some lenders advertise low rates to lead to an upsell.
2. Some lenders quote a low rate but deliberately don’t mention the term (length of the loan).
Both are relevant and interesting. But with only 60 seconds, there wasn’t time for either bit of information to sink in with the listener.
The “omitting the term” tidbit, especially, needs more time for listeners to process. It pushed the initial interesting fact (the “upsell” tactic) out of the listener’s mind to make room for the new interesting fact.
Just as I preach to radio personalities “One thought per break,” this Cash Call radio campaign should offer a single informational tidbit per spot.
And this line gives me pause:
“If you find a lower rate somewhere else, cancel with us…”
That line is meant to reassure potential borrowers, but instead it plants the suggestion: “You might be able to get lower rates somewhere else….”
Solution? Either drop that line entirely or build an entire commercial around that guarantee.
Still, in a world of C- to D+ commercials, I’d give this one a B+.
