We've received responses and feedback from CC Radio CEO John Hogan, agencies, GMs and others regarding our story last week about the AAAAs letter to Hogan voicing concerns about CC Radio's "Less is More" initiative (12/3 RBR #235).

Said Hogan:
"Our discussions with AAAA and other members of the advertising community are ongoing and we are increasingly encouraged by the interest in and support of Less is More. We'll most certainly be sharing research; we'll work with the AAAA on invoicing, spot length and positions; we'll continue to collaborate directly with advertisers; and we'll continue to make our radio stations as effective for listeners and advertisers as possible."

From John Halford, VP/Market Manager, Triad Broadcasting - West Virginia / Virginia:
"The organization brings up good questions that can be solved but it also seems as if the AAAA maybe saying this as well. This is a great idea, we want you to reduce spot loads, highlight our advertisers, retain longer listenership, get greater results for our advertisers and we as the AAAA say this good for radio. But, we are not willing to change our plans in creative or in budget allocation to radio in 2005 to see if this truly good for our advertisers and radio. Is it just me or does this seem like the same old game. Here is the industry leader doing something that makes basic sense and providing the RAEL research to back it up but now there are even more questions and after this round I am sure there maybe even more questions.

I would ask the AAAA as TV viewership goes down and the agency investment continues to rise in TV, why? Why are they so resistant to get greater reach and frequency by allocating to radio or outdoor or anything other than the big three TV guys. The world is changing but the majority of consumers cannot change with the technology, they just cannot afford it yet. Radio has retained solid listenership level for decades, but still Madison Avenue still likes the hippest, latest, newest unproven way to reel in clients (example video game ads - In my house they love Madden 2005 but when it goes on in my house it goes on once and stays on for hours as people play - the ad once came on in the beginning and never again in a 3 hour period- where is the value in that?). I would say to them in reality we are all sales people Agency Ex, Radio GM, etc, we understand the concept of sizzle for clients. We also understand common sense marketing. Teaching consumers is like teaching your children; it is repetition or a consistent message. It isn't rocket science; the proof that it is not resides in the fact that so many people, mediums and companies do it well. So what is the real hold up, what are the really facts? It seems like a traditional grind rate fest in the 4th quarter for the coming year.

The fact is that radio will succeed only if we make clients successful in getting their message across. It is not surprising that the agencies are in the same boat. In a small market we gain and lose business everyday, it walks across the street. That makes us better sellers, we understand why they when across the street. Most of the time it is not rate, it may be an idea, service, corporate pressure, agency target goals. We learn, adapt and try to solve the problem. In many cases, stations drop there rate to try to recoup the business - but can the AAAA tell me how that helps the service, ideal, customer target strategies? Again, it seems like the rate shell game, the AAAA is a powerful respected force that working together with companies like Clear Channel and industry other leaders can better the radio environment for their customers by yielding better results. But change is painful and requires commitment and determination. I would continue to ask, does the AAAA what positive change for their advertisers? Can they go the mile with Radio to work through the pain phase of this transition? Do they have the commitment to find a way to improve ROI for their clients by committing to a natural reach and frequency medium that folk decades has been the most cost effective medium available? Are they determined to learn how the consumers' mind uses radio and the difference in formats to personalize and target each message for each format user? Or will they say, it's radio just get it on the air for the cheapest amount. Again that is the same tune, different year. I hope the AAAA will lead along side of radio's leaders and not in a play opposition role."

From Matt Hackett, CEO, radioDCL http://www.radiodcl.com:
"I honestly cannot believe we're all actually having this discussion over the relative merits of :60 and :30 sec commercials. Any semi-competent creative director or copywriter will tell you that :30 is plenty of time to make good branding and / or call-to-action commercials on radio. You only have to look at the vast majority of radio advertising in every country except the US to see how uncommon :60 spots are. I've built huge, highly successful campaigns featuring :15 spots exclusively. The ludicrous practice of calling all commercial lengths "units" and selling :60's for the same price as :30's created the erroneous belief that "more is more" in the first place.

The whole debate is a total red herring. The reason people are tuning out is not because there are too many commercials or even that they're too long (although most of them are!). It's simply that the same thinking that comes up with concepts like "units", "pods", "islands", "flights" and "clusters" is what's behind the programming decisions as well.

Listeners know the game. Commercials are the necessary trade-off for engaging, value-filled, free programming. Our job as broadcasters is to make both the programming and the commercials as entertaining, relevant and effective as possible; not to come up with ever-more irrelevant names for the same old mistakes while the programming gets worse and worse and the rest of our listeners buy satellite receivers."

Anonymous:
"So while you're at it, why don't you get some feedback as to why CC Radio's sales staffs commissions have been restructured for this unproven program. They will be paid on "behavior" instead of volume - meaning higher commission on :30's (but only 1% more than the current structure!) . Some of this "behavior" includes up to a loss of 4% on :60's - which have been normal buying practices for over 3 decades. Seems Mr. Hogan and CC are trying to make up expected LIM losses on their sales staff. Maybe they should take the pay cut."

Look for agency response in tomorrow's RBR and TVBR daily Epapers.