DAN O’DAY TALKS ABOUT RADIO

RADIO BUMPER MUSIC (FADE OUT…)

by Dan O'Day on February 24, 2010

The producer of a show that is syndicated to public radio stations across the U.S. writes:

“A supervisor with whom I have to work has decided that even though we have several dozen beautifully timed 59-second music beds that we use in our breaks, suddenly it’s a MAJOR priority that we replace them with music beds that fade out. His main reason: ‘NPR shows all do it that way.’

“Network programs have 59-second music beds placed within them to allow stations to insert content if they wish, or to roll, as is, until they rejoin. “Do you think it sounds better for a music bed to time out to :59, with a defined start and end — basically a self-contained 59-second piece of music — or for the music to fade out to fit the time requirement? Or does it even matter?”

If what the listener hears is a 59-second piece that ends “cold” and then immediately abuts the next element, that would be ideal. Allowing the music to fade to fit the time is less professional (i.e., much easier for the radio station but at the expense of the listener’s enjoyment).

Think about a network TV show. Which would you as a viewer enjoy more:

1) Commercial ends….Then an “NBC” placard is on-screen for five or six seconds….Then the next program begins.

2) Commercial ends, then the next program begins without any delay.

For most people, #2 is preferable.

That’s also why on a newscast, the newscaster times her closing words to be spoken immediately before the broadcast ends…rather than, say, humming into the microphone for 10 or 15 seconds because it was too much trouble to time out her presentation.

As for the guy’s reason (“NPR shows all do it that way”): And if all the other NPR shows jumped off a bridge….?

Having worked with NPR, I can assure you they certainly do not require the programs it airs to fade their music beds. They do it that way because:

A) It’s easier.

and

B) They’ve never really thought about it.

I’m not criticizing programs that do fade their music beds (known as “fill music”). For this kind of use, I don’t think it’s a big deal one way or the other.

And the NPR program producers with whom I’ve worked certainly are not lazy or uncaring. They’re as overworked as are all radio people everywhere, commercial and non-commercial alike.

But the idea that your program has produced a collection of music- appropriate pieces that exactly fit the required length and this “supervisor” is insisting on replacing them with more generic cuts that arbitrarily will be faded as needed….

Well, that strikes me as pretty darn stupid.

A 59-second piece is meant to end at 59 seconds. It’s structured that way. But a longer piece that is faded at 59 seconds is incomplete and unfulfilling to the listener.

{ 2 comments }

MIXED MESSAGES DEPARTMENT

by Dan O'Day on February 23, 2010

For decades elevators in Los Angeles County have displayed this reassuring bit of safety instruction.

Of course, it could be — and was — worse.

For years the message began with:

“If the elevator fails to operate or the doors fail to open, please do not become alarmed. There is little danger of running out of air or of this elevator falling uncontrollably.”

Thereby, no doubt, terrifying countless passengers who until that moment never had considered the possibility of running out of air or falling uncontrollably.

{ 1 comment }

MONDAY RADIO COMMERCIAL SMACKDOWN: New York Mint

by Dan O'Day on February 22, 2010

This commercial critique will surprise and probably annoy some Loyal Readers. First, the radio commercial:

You’re waiting for me to tear it apart, right?

But overall, I’m impressed.

• Yes, “Back to programming in a minute” will drive PDs crazy. But I’m evaluating this from the advertiser’s and prospect’s perspective, not the radio station’s. And the advertiser is attempting to create the illusion of a radio host talking about something that interests here — while simultaneously stating quite clearly that what she’s about to say is not programming.

Which minimizes their exposure to accusations of trying to disguise the fact that the listener is hearing advertising.

• They’re smart enough not to say, “Listen to what it says here in the paper…”

They understand that the sound effect of rustling newspaper is enough to paint the appropriate picture in the listener’s mind. They’re smart enough to “show” rather than to “tell.”

• “There’s a number you can call” — They refer to the existence of a phone number but they don’t give it yet. Why not? Because they haven’t yet given listeners a reason to want to call.

• “It says that during the Great Depression, people were greedy for gold coins, because no one wanted to face economic turbulence without the security gold.” — Selling is educating. They’re planting the seeds of why the listener should care.

• She’s telling a story. The story is carefully constructed to make people want to call that phone number, but it’s a story…not a brochure.

• “That’s why most of us have never even seen a classic U.S. gold coin.” While my jaded advertising ears can’t help but guess that “classic U.S. gold coin” contains some weasel words — meeting some legal technicality — that’s a great line.

They’re taking a truth — most people haven’t seen a classic U.S. gold coin — and the story she’s telling at last solves the mystery that we didn’t even realize existed before this commercial began. The fact that you’ve never seen a U.S. gold coin somehow proves this commercial is truthful.

• Here’s a left-handed compliment: The voice person doesn’t sound like a real person, talking conversationally. Purely from a VO performance perspective, it’s not an impressive read. Instead, she sounds like a radio host — not a great one, not a terrible one.

So while she doesn’t sound as though she’s sharing some intriguing piece of information she’s just stumbled upon — as a truly good radio personality would — she doesn’t sound like a commercial announcer, either.

She comes across as someone doing a mediocre job of sharing something she hopes is interesting to her listeners. Good radio program? No. Effective radio commercial? Yes.

• She does get bogged down at the halfway point as she struggles to make “gleaming U.S. gold coins minted between 1866 and 1993, all uncirculated” sound conversational. I’m guessing that bit of required info presented the copywriter with a bit of a struggle.

• “It says the New York Mint is releasing them to the public” — Again reinforcing the verbal reality of “Hey, did you see what it says here in the paper…?”

• “…when you call…Here it is” — And for the first time she gives the phone number.

She hasn’t been shouting it at the listener throughout the commercial. Instead, she introduces it only after — hopefully— she has caused some people to think, “Hmm, maybe I should check that out. How do I found out more about this ‘gold coin’ thing?”

The woman doesn’t imply the phone number has any intrinsic value. It’s just something she’d seen in this “article” she’s been referring to, and it’s important only insofar as it will help interested listeners find out how they can take part in this wonderful, historic opportunity.

(Is it a wonderful opportunity? Is it historic? I have no idea. I’m not endorsing the product. I’m complimenting the radio commercial that sells it.)

• “Wouldn’t that be amazing?” — Really nice line, well delivered. Very un-announcerish.

• The weakest element of the spot is the fuzzy reason given to cal lthat phone number. For “free historic information?” (Let me guess: That’s another way of saying “sales brochure.”)

For the “free collector’s DVD?” What’s on that DVD? Why does it have value to the targeted listener?

In reality — still guessing, but willing to back up my guess with a large wager — the DVD is a sales pitch. But if it pitches the value of these “collectors’ coins,” then I’d say technically it does qualify as a “collector’s DVD.”

Do I endorse this product? No. Nor do I suggest you invest in gold coins. I don’t know anything about that.

But I know good advertising when I hear it.

{ 30 comments }