Often a reader of this blog will post a response that disagrees with something I said.
Usually I don’t offer a rebuttal, because the “Comments” feature doesn’t exist so I can argue with my valued readers.
But sometimes a comment does raise an issue that’s worth further explanation. Hence, this Friday tradition of Responding To Something Somebody Said Somewhere Else On This Blog At Some Time.
In response to my statement that it’s in the best interests of both the audience and the radio personality for the host to give his/her name frequently, someone (identified as “Names Are Overrated”) said:
“If you have a strong personality and actually have content to deliver, your name is an afterthought. The focus should be on the average non-radio listener. We want them to have an enjoyable, memorable, experience listening to the station.
“And to address your radio analogy.. I’ve been to tons of fun parties, talking to very interesting people and never did catch their name… and ya know what? I’m ok with that. I had fun and remembered the party fondly.”
Why would a radio station focus on the average non-radio listener? Ratings don’t come from non-radio listeners; they come from habitual radio listeners.
The parties you’ve attended where you spoke with interesting people but never learned their names:
As much as I stress the importance of focusing on the audience’s experience, you also need to serve the radio station’s needs.
While it makes no difference to those anonymous people you spoke to at the party if you know their names, there’s not a radio station in the world that can succeed by offering a one-time pleasant experience to listeners who never return.
May I safely assume there have been times when you’ve enjoyed a conversation with someone you just met and did make a point of learning that person’s name and, possibly, how to reach them sometime in the future?
That’s the quality of experience a good radio station provides to its listeners. It makes them want to know the name of the station, the name of the host, and the dial position…so they can return and continue to enjoy that relationship.
Comments on this entry are closed.
Couldn’t agree with you more, Dan. It’s infuriating how many jocks don’t properly identify themselves at the top of a break. It takes literally two seconds to lay the groundwork for one-to-one communication. (All hail Jay Trachman, Rest In Peace.) It should be part of EVERY open… ID station/ID self, both with consistency.
Without that intro there’s no way for a listener to pin the conversation to a person… which is the magic of the medium.
… because building relationships is more important in the long run.
… because radio management (aka vampires) would prefer to suppress personal branding.
I pity the woman who siphoned up lots of party chat but doinked on the opportunity to make a friend. It’s the sort of self absorbed, live-for-the-moment crap that pervades everything these days.
I recall in the early days of CNN Headline news, the anchor’s name was never fonted because mgt reasoned that “the news” was the product and the drone who delivered it was unimportant. Now they have Robin Meade. Which approach do you think has been more successful?
You’re right on, Dan! The listener is our friend . We want to know them and they need to know us. It’s essential to the connection we need (must!) make with our listener. They have given us the privilege to enter their home, vehicle, workplace, etc., they should know who they let in! Radio is an intimate medium, which, as Ben mentions in his comment, is what makes it magical!
non-radio.. meant not industry folks. real listeners that are not in radio. we’re not trying to impress the PD across the street or the OM down the hall. Let’s drop the ego with name shouts every other break… or twice in one break and just deliver great content.
I think it’s completely fair to compare attending a party – a one-time event – to listening to the radio – something we want our listeners to do multiple times per day, every day of the week, every week of the year.
I also hope the sarcasm of the above paragraph is obvious.
When did some radio owners and GMs forget that radio is supposed to be part of the entertainment industry? When did they forget that one of the advantages of radio is that personal connection we can build with our listeners that TV and newspapers and, these days, iPods and such can’t accomplish? Ever take your iPod into the shower to listen to a few tunes & find out what the weather’s going
to be today? Ever try reading your newspaper (if one still exists in your town) while you get dressed? How about watching TV on the drive home from work? The personal connection is what *can* set radio apart, although I’m betting it doesn’t at “Names are overrated”‘s station(s).
I’ve lived this. I was Asst. PD of a flame-throwing small market CHR back in the day. We all said our names regularly; that’s the way the owner (an indy!) wanted it. It helped us build a virtual one-on-one relationship with our listeners. When we did remotes they turned into events! Anywhere from dozens to hundreds of our listeners
would show up, and many of them knew the DJ’s name. Many of them felt like the DJ was a friend of theirs.
In the mid-90s, I moved to an AC station with half the staff and all programming from 5:00 PM to 6:00 AM weekdays & 24/7 on the weekends delivered via satellite. For the sake of consistency we matched our on-air approach to that of the satellite, part of which
was giving jock names no more than once per hour. We had plenty of listeners, but there was no passion for that station from a single one of them. We were wallpaper; we were just there in the background.
These days I’m fortunate enough to work for an indy again, and he wants his rock station to be as local as possible. We have a syndicated AM Drive show (with local inserts), then we’re live/local until time for the next morning show. The owner insists – on the
recommendation of our consultant – that the jocks introduce themselves, at least briefly, in every break. It can be as simple as “…I’m Joe Blow…,” but he understands that it’s impossible for the listener to have a *personal* connection with the radio station; they
can *only* have that with another person. He values his on-air staff as talent, as the ambassadors for his business, and he expects us to connect with listeners on a personal level. That’s impossible to do if the listener doesn’t know who’s talking to them. This rock station has some of the most passionate listeners I’ve seen in the last 20 years,
and it’s not because we play Skynyrd. It’s because we connect with our listeners and our listeners know us.
If you think a jock saying their name briefly in every break is a sign of ego, I can only assume (1) you’re a failed talent, and (2) you don’t value the talent in your building. If you’re in a position to enforce those beliefs and (even worse) pass them along to others, you can lay a nice, big chunk of the blame for radio’s demise as an entertainment medium firmly at your doorstep. You’ve helped create an atmosphere wherein listening to the radio is about as exciting and personal and entertaining as operating a vacuum cleaner.
I performed morning radio for almost 20 years and gave my name at every opportunity. Usually with a “Good Morning” or “How Are You?” or “What’s up?”.
I took the approach that I was introducing myself with every break for those folks who had just tuned in.
I also included great content. It’s a very do-able thing!
When I was a kid I loved listening to the radio and knowing the names of those guys who were entertaining me. (God Bless You John “Records” Landecker) To this day I remember and maintain a fondness for each and every on-air personality that ever made a great impression on me.
Back to my personal situation, I maintained the number one morning show in my market for all the years I worked there. Whenever I went “Krogering” I ran into listeners who knew me by name and acted as if they had known me all their lives. I felt like my listeners were part of my family and they reacted that way to me. Building that kind of loyalty is important to you and your station. BTW how many times do those big name syndicated shows offer their names during the show? Maybe that’s part of how they became “Big Name”?? (of course with good content too! It’s a do-able thing!)
The faulty logic of “Don’t give your name just good content” would leave a lot of famous people nameless and faceless out there in the real world.
This insistence of not including your name seems to be an insidious plot by programmers and owners who are afraid someone might become more popular than them. (Why, these popular people might even insist on being paid what their worth! GASP!)
Just keep up with the mediocrity guys and gals, there are many personal listening devices and websites that are ready to take your jobs!! You too, owners and programmers!! Boo Ha Haaa Haaaa!!
I agree, Dan and I’m enjoying reading everybody’s comments. I was one of those kids who “knew” her favorite DJs in the Philly market in the 70s and 80s. I saw them at the Pep Boys grand openings and at remotes all over the place. When I grew up to do radio, I made sure I said my name enough, and got to experience the joy of hearing from listeners all over the country who felt a connection.
A group of songs on an iPod or Pandora can’t replace the intimacy of radio, and the camaraderie of sharing a laugh or being able to relate to a story shared by a host who cares enough about listeners to share his or her name and heart with them, and to speak with them as if each is the only one tuned in.
I agree Dan!!
How many times have you heard a listener say when you meet them in person “It is great to put a face to the name”?
In this day in age with Ipads, Satellite Radio and the internet it is even more important to build that personal relationship with our listeners, thus creating loyalty!
When I did weekends on an oldies network over ten years ago, the GM (an old-school boss jock) said to be sure to give your ‘every’ break. It was hard to break that habit while employed full-time at a ‘big time’ format provider who said ‘two times an hour’ was more than enough.