DAN O’DAY TALKS ABOUT RADIO

Although many radio copywriters would cringe at the opening line of this commercial, it’s not a bad way to begin the spot:

If you plan on selling or buying your home, listen to this important message.

Unfortunately, that’s the only thing this ad doesn’t do badly.

Did you know Rex sells homes 30% faster and charges only a 1% fee?

Consumer: Well, no. Because I have no idea who “Rex” is, there’s no way I could know how fast Rex sells homes or how much Rex charges.

Rex is revolutionizing real estate to save you tens of thousands of dollars.

No home buyer or seller cares about working with a company that is “revolutionizing real estate.”

“Save you tens of thousands of dollars” is relevant to the targeted consumer; “revolutionizing real estate” is not.

Only 1%. Not the outrageous 6% traditional real estate agents charge.

That could…and should…have been the focus of this radio campaign:

“If you’re buying or selling a home, don’t be ripped off by the outrageous 6% commissions that old-fashioned real estate agencies still try to charge you.”

Instead, however, the ad copy focuses not on the targeted consumer but on…Rex:

“Rex sells…”

“Rex charges…”

“Rex is…”

“Rex uses…”

“Rex does…”

The rest of the commercial copy is such a mess that I won’t continue to dissect it line by line. But….

* Either give a vanity phone number (213-699-4REX) or give a numeric phone number (213-699-4739). Giving both is what expert copywriters refer to as “stupid.”

* In cases such as this, they give the numeric phone number just in case the listener doesn’t understand the vanity number.

Hint: If you think there’s a chance the listener might not understand the vanity number, don’t give the vanity number.

If you tell listeners to call 213-699-4REX, some of them will unsuccessfully try to reach the advertiser by calling 213-699-FourRex.”

If the advertiser insists upon using such a lame vanity number, they need to say: “Call 213-699-4REX. That’s 213-699…the number 4…rex.”

* They give two Calls to Action: Call them on the telephone or go to their website.

A successful radio commercial needs to give a single Call to Action.

It’s been proven again and again: Choice suppresses response.

Each time you require prospects to make a decision (should I call them or should I go to their website?), you lose some of them.

* After having already declared, “Today’s home buyers search the Internet,” they suggest that you contact them via that antiquated medium, the telephone.

* They don’t give the consumer any reason either to call the company or to go to their website.

If you’re going to tell them to call, you need to give them a specific reason to do so.

If you want people to go to your website, it needs to be either to get something (e.g., free listing of home sale prices in their neighborhood) or to do something (e.g., fill out this form and receive a confidential, free quote on the precise value of your home).

The radio spot ends with a ridiculously speeded up disclaimer that serves only one practical purpose: to lessen in the listener’s trust in that advertiser.

If the fine print in your offer is too small for people to read, they assume it’s because you don’t want them to know the details of the offer.

If the disclaimer in your radio ad is spoken too quickly for the human ear to decipher, people assume you don’t want them to hear the terms and limitations of the offer.

“But Dan, the Mean Old Government Makes Us Include a Disclaimer.”

1. Not necessarily. You need to include a disclaimer only under specific conditions. The best way to minimize the amount of your commercial time that’s devoted to a disclaimer is to minimize the claims you make that require disclaimers.

2. If you need to include every word of the disclaimer in that particular commercial, make room for it by deleting some of the excess crap that precedes it. For example: No one in the audience cares about your “proprietary algorithms.”

Here’s yet another example of the Inane Radio Copywriting Gimmick of the 2010’s:

Using analogies to explain a concept the consumer already understands.

Raise your hand if you’ve ever compared “squeaky toys” for a dog.

If you didn’t raise your hand, you were excluded from that commercial message.

Did you understand what she was saying after she mentioned comparing restaurants?

At first I thought she was saying, “You compare flights.”

But I wasn’t sure, so I listened to it again.

And again and again.

Via my desktop computer’s speakers; via my laptop’s speakers; via earbuds.

No matter how many times I listened to it, I couldn’t determine for certain what that word was.

I had several friends listen to that spot. After much back-and-forth discussion, the consensus was that she probably was saying “flights.”

Or flies.

Or sides.

Or size.

Or slides.

I’ve flown roughly 3 million miles during the past 30 years. But still I wasn’t sure what she was talking about.

That’s a production problem.

Or, ultimately, a quality control problem. The ad agency didn’t take the time to make sure that people who knew nothing about this advertising campaign could understand all the words…as well as the Core Message of the commercial.

Lots of people rarely, if ever, take airline flights.

When you say to them, “You compare flights,” they respond (assuming they understand you’re saying “flights” and not “flies”), “No, I don’t.”

Those listeners realize that whomever you’re talking to, it’s not them.

The analogy doesn’t even make sense. What do restaurants, flights, and Spike’s squeaky toys have to do with your credit card?

Actually, a connection could be made: You pay for your restaurant meals, airline flights and toys for your pets with a credit card.

You could make that connection, but why would you bother?

That approach is the equivalent of advertising toothpaste by saying:

“You want your car to be clean. You want your dog to be clean. So…Why not make sure your teeth are clean?”

Question for the Copywriter of this Radio Ad

“Why did you begin the spot by talking about restaurants, flights and Spike’s squeaky toys?”

The concept of “choosing the best credit card for you” isn’t difficult for the average consumer to understand.

That opening is like saying to a friend:

“You need to provide your automobile with fuel to keep it running. You need to recharge the batteries of your heat seeking attack drone to wreak devastation upon your neighbor’s yard. Well — try to stay with me here — your body needs fuel, too. Where does your body get that fuel? From food. So…You wanna go get a pizza?”

The service NerdWallet offers isn’t about choice; it’s about “the best credit card for me.”

But they don’t mention “best credit card for you” until 19 seconds into the commercial

That’s 1/3 of the spot wasted.

But Wait, There’s Less!

They first mention “best credit card for you” at 19 seconds in.

But what do they mean by “best credit card for you?

Do they mean
    Lowest interest rate?
    Airline or hotel points?
    % cash back on annual purchases?
    Lowest late payment penalties?
    Special relationships with other services (e.g., discounts at restaurants)?
    No additional surcharges on overseas purchases ?
    Or even “most widely accepted”? (Sorry, Discover Card).

They don’t begin to define “best credit card for you” until :24 — after they’ve wasted 40% of their commercial time.

They even believe it’s necessary to illustrate for the radio listener the concept of “fast.”

In addition to needlessly providing us with a metaphor for “fast,” they do it badly.

When you say your website provides the information the visitor wants “…fast,” people instantly get an image in their minds of what “fast” means.

For example, they might envision typing in a few words, clicking on a button and then instantly being shown the best option for them.

When you say “Like we bet it takes longer to brush your teeth fast,” their image changes…probably for the worse.

It’s possible that you find brushing your teeth to be the highlight of your day; when you’re done, you wish it could’ve taken longer.

Unlike you, I find brushing my teeth to be a tedious, annoying, necessary task.

NerdWallet has managed to get me to associate the experience they provide with my annoying experience of brushing my teeth.

We critique movies. We critique debate performances. We critique pitches given on Shark Tank. So why not critique radio commercials?

Are you having an “a-ha” moment?

I didn’t think so.

A Loyal Reader Writes:

“Another former radio person and myself are having a discussion about a radio station’s use of our voice after we leave that company. We are both still on commercials that run regularly. She has been gone a year, myself two years. There are no provisions in the employee handbook we were issued about the subject.

“From your experiences do we have any rights to say ‘cease and desist’? Can we invoice them for the voice work or are they totally within their rights to profit of our voices after we leave their employ?”

Dan Replies:

Let’s get the disclaimer out of the way.

I’m not a lawyer.

I’m not offering legal advice.

I don’t known nuthin’ ’bout legal stuff.

You got a legal question, ask an attorney.

Okay?

My experience and limited understanding of the law leads me to believe that if you don’t have a contract saying that when you leave their employ, the radio station must stop airing anything that contains your voice…

…you’re out of luck.

Certainly if when you were hired it was understood that your job included voicing commercials and you didn’t have such a “when I leave, you have to stop using my voice” clause, I believe the spots you recorded would be considered a “work for hire”…

…which would mean it’s the property of the radio station.

The only silver lining in this cloud is the heads up it should give to in-demand radio personalities who sign with a new employer or who sign a new contract with their existing employer:

Add a clause to the contract that says any characters, features, contests or other unique elements that you create for your radio show will remain your intellectual property in the event that, for any reason, you leave the station’s employ.

(To see what happens when it doesn’t occur to the talent to require such a clause, see “David Letterman and Larry ‘Bud’ Mellman.'”)

Returning to  your original question:

While you might have a hard time establishing ownership of spots that you voiced anonymously, in your next contract it probably would be an excellent idea to stipulate that if and when you leave the radio station’s employ, the station must immediately cease airing any spots that identify you by name.

But even that has hairs that can be split. For example, what if the client paid extra to have you identify yourself on that spot?

But to answer your directly: In my non-legal opinion which should not be construed as legal advice, I don’t think you’d be successful trying to stop your previous employer from airing commercials that you voiced as a routine part of your job.

In my seminars and coaching for radio personalities, I’ve always taught a technique I call “The Inverse Set-Up.”

Simply stated, The Inverse Set-Up consists of making your comment first and then giving the information.

Here’s a Very Basic Example of The Inverse Set-Up

“You’d better go to the front hall closet and dig out your umbrella (the comment)…because there’s an 80% chance of rain tomorrow (the information).”

Imagine two people in a car, with your radio show on. They’re talking, yawning, daydreaming, planning their day….

Your goal is to get at least one of them to lean forward, turn up the volume and say, “Wait, I want to hear this.”

When you begin by saying, “You’d better dig out your raincoat,” common listener reactions will include:

“Wait, I want to hear this. It’s going to rain? Today? Tomorrow? Tonight? I was going to play tennis this afternoon. We’re planning to go on a picnic tomorrow. Johnny’s supposed to ride his bike home after band practice today; will it be raining then?”

Most radio people, however, do the exact opposite.

They give the information and then they comment on it:

“There’s an 80% chance of rain tomorrow…so you’d better go dig out your umbrella.”

Thanks, pal. Once I knew it probably will rain tomorrow, I was able to figure out that I might need an umbrella.

The problem with giving the information first and then making a comment is that once listeners have the information, they make their own mental comments.

And those mental comments are much more precisely targeted for each listener…because each listener knows his/her life better than you do.

I’ve also always preached to jocks:

“Make each feature your own. Everything you do on the radio should in some way reflect your own unique personality.”

That doesn’t mean you don’t follow the station’s format.

The station’s programming doesn’t come to a halt so that you can do this next thing “your way.”

Recently I was pleased to hear Mary Price of 100.3 The Sound (Los Angeles) do a simple record intro that incorporated both of those principles.

The “comment” portion of her Inverse Set-Up wasn’t that she never was a fan of that TV show.

Her comment was “I can’t believe they were able to get those 2 guys to perform this song on that show…”

The “information” was what show, which two guys, and what song.

How Did She “Make It Her Own?”

The next time I hear “Every Breath You Take,” the odds are I’ll think of Robert Downey Jr. and Sting singing that song on the Ally McBeal show.

And I’ll probably think of the radio personality who drew my attention to that fact by first commenting about it and then sharing the details.