Lots of reaction to my first Radio Copywriting video — mostly positive. If you haven’t checked it out, here’s where to find it. (It’s the first of a series of free videos.)
Circuit City is the second largest discount consumer electronics chain in the U.S. This week they filed for bankruptcy.
In an attempt to return to profitability, less than two years ago Circuit City “laid off” (fired; sacked) a few thousand employees whom Circuit City decided were being paid too much. No, not top executives who pulled down huge bonuses and outlandish benefits. These were sales “associates” who were being paid above what management had determined to be the market norm for their positions.
Why were those employees being paid so much? Because they were veteran associates whose tenure and job performance ratings had been rewarded with higher salaries.
In other words, Circuit City decided to save money by firing their best employees. Those employees were told they could reapply for their old jobs at a “a market-based salary” — i.e., for a lot less money.
If you’ve been to a Circuit City since then (I have), you might have noticed the salespeople appeared to know less about their merchandise than you did.
Apparently that strategy didn’t work.
Meanwhile, in the U.S. the same strategy is being applied by Corporate Radio: Save money by firing your highest paid employees. Or by offering to renew their contracts but at greatly reduced salaries.
Before everyone lauds me for criticizing this policy, I should point out that some of these “you’re too expensive” victims had been overpaid all along. They never should have received the outlandish salaries they were given by managers who were unable to differentiate between a show host who was lucky enough to be on a highly rated station and a personality who brought ratings to the station.
But the ones who earned it? Not the ones who just came along for the ride but who brought in the listeners, which translated to ratings, which translated to revenue?
Radio stations that employ intelligent managers conduct a cost/benefit analysis before making such salary cutbacks. Sometimes — I know you hate to hear this, but it’s true — sometimes the reduced revenue from an air shift’s ratings drop is considerably less than the dollar amount of the salary being saved. In other words, sometimes it’s a cold but economically defensible move.
Sometimes, I said. Not usually.
Circuit City thought they were saving money. In reality, they were weakening the consumer experience at their stores. Radio stations that decimate their listener experience should not be surprised when ratings — and revenue — decline further.
When Lloydie was at the UK’s NRG, he’d give away — Well, I’ll let him explain it.
“When bands visit our radio station on promotional tours, rather than doing a standard interview I get them to play ‘Twister’ in our studio while I ask questions. When we’re finished I get them all to sign the Twister mat. Once ten bands have played, I give away the game on-air.
The girl I gave my last Twister set away to went absolutely mad on-air. You would have thought she’d won £10,000! She invited all her friends and family around to see the prize she’s won from me. And if she had won £10,000, she would never have been able to buy something with so many famous signatures on it.
Total investment by radio station in contest? £10 for the Twister set and around £5 in postage. And the amount of talkability we got from it was far more than any cash giveaway.”
Nope, they didn’t even make her “come to the station during normal business hours and pick up your prize.”
I’ll just assume Eastwood Insurance paid a license fee to use “Tighten Up” as this spot’s music bed. A little surprising, but it would be even more surprising to discover they used a copyrighted piece of music without paying for the rights.
Why did they think that piece of music would increase the impact of their sales message? Beats me.
They actually have the germ of a human story that could grab the attention of the targeted listener, but they make a couple of mistakes:
1. They “bury the lead.” Instead of beginning with the human story, they start with a generic attack on “broker fees” and then start talking about themselves.
2. They claim they’re telling a “true story,” but they don’t give us enough details to believe it. The “guy” who “stopped in” — If it’s a true story, that guy has a name. Tell us his name. Details increase credibility.
Do you believe “Mark Ramirez” is an Eastwood agent? Sure. He speaks everyday “regular” language — and he begins by telling us his name. We believe he exists. We’re not so sure about that guy and his buddies.
The misuse of music obscures the excellent dialogue:
“We don’t charge a broker’s fee, and that saves you cash.”
“True story: This guy…”
Excellent fast start. Complete sentences not always necessary. (But, again, it “started fast” 18 seconds into the commercial — which is too late to start.)
“A guy stops in after his buddies tell him about…”
“He knew they had to be jokin’.”
“He was droppin’ 460 bucks — ouch!”
“So we run the numbers, and the price drops like a rock.”
Poetic? No.
The way real people talk? Yes.
HERE COMES THE CLUE TRAIN (which, fortunately, made a stop at Eastwood): Speak the language of your target audience.
Quick & dirty edit to demonstrate how this spot could have begun with the story and grabbed the attention of the target audience from the opening words:
