Pollack Media’s Pat Welsh is a long time contributor to FMQB’s Programming To Win column, and as SVP Of Digital Content for Pollack Media, he has closely watched the evolution of the digital side of radio. In his 24 years at Pollack, Welsh has seen the Internet, mobile devices and PPM revolutionize the industry. In a wide-ranging conversation with FMQB, Welsh takes a big-picture look at the ways radio is using social media, the importance of streaming apps, personalized radio, the future of radio ratings and much more.
By Joey Odorisio
Pat Welsh
Pollack Media’s Pat Welsh has been a long time contributor to FMQB, writing several informative pieces for our Programming To Win column. As SVP Of Digital Content for Pollack Media, Welsh has closely watched the evolution of the digital side of radio, as the Web, mobile technology and PPM have revolutionized the business. In a wide-ranging conversation with FMQB, Welsh takes a big-picture look at the ways radio is using social media, the importance of streaming apps, personalized radio and the future of radio ratings. Welsh also discusses how radio listeners today expect a high level of interactivity and some measure of control when it comes to their experiences with radio.
How is radio best using social media currently?
It’s interesting, that’s the question we get the most. Everybody realizes that radio is a brand that has to be distributed across every platform you can possibly use. The easy part about social media is that radio stations realize there are lots of people using Facebook and Twitter, so stations have jumped in with both feet. For a long time people were asking, “Should we get this traffic just on our website or do we get involved with Facebook and if so, how much?” Then with the overwhelming weight of [user] numbers on Facebook, these stations finally came to grips with the fact that since it’s where a lot of listeners are, they need to be there too. The big thing is that radio stations are getting more nuanced about how they use it and figuring that the conversations are going to happen with listeners on Facebook, so you can encourage people to comment on what you’re talking about.
The other thing stations are figuring out is how to link back to their own websites so they also get some traffic out of it. Perhaps they’re doing a morning show bit or maybe it was something that has a visual element to it. They can talk about it on Facebook and link to the videos they’ve posted on the station website. I think that’s big. Stations have to be involved where they know the listeners already are, but they also need to use that as a way to help generate more traffic on their own website.
There are a lot of stations doing this really well. I see it a lot with morning shows in particular. WIYY (98Rock) in Baltimore has been doing a lot of different things with bits that were very visual. They were able to do them on-air, but also there was a visual element they filmed and then were able to post on the website and talk about on Facebook. Most stations now are doing that as much as possible. Anything on the station’s website, they’re trying to reverse engineer it. The thinking is, “We’ve got this content, now how do we create a conversation on Facebook to talk about it?” You can have a jock talking about something that just happened and you post the video on the website. Most stations seem to be doing a pretty good job of that and looking for every opportunity. If they’ve got unique content on the website, find a way to create a conversation about it on Facebook or other social media.
A lot of people would say for new revenue; and digital revenue in particular. That’s the big thing people are looking for, and that’s certainly what the programmers are hearing from everyone involved on the corporate level on down. Everybody’s looking for additional digital revenue, corporate is looking for more of a bigger slice coming from digital. That’s where social media, andespecially the station’s website comes into play, because if you’re going to get digital revenue, you’ve got to be able to put the eyeballs and the clicks on your own website. It’s about generating content at every opportunity. Anything you can do where you can produce something you’ll be able to post on the website, whether it’s video, audio, text or just photos, it’s [about] putting as much of that online as possible to create as much traffic for the website.
It’s going to end up generating more revenue in the long run, which is a good thing, that’s what corporate wants. It’s also where the station should be in terms of creating a stronger connection with their listeners, because that’s something listeners expect. Use of social media, posting info on the website they want, concert information or whatever else it might be; those are expectations of listeners now. If you’re going to be that music hub for your listeners, they’re going to expect you to have information about the music you play. They’re going to expect you to have content and information about the personalities on the station and promotions, and be able to discuss that with other people. It’s what stations have to keep pushing towards: that these things aren’t add-ons, they are a part of the process now.
I’ve told some PDs that posting social media content or content to the station’s website isn’t just something that maybe you do. It’s absolutely essential and part of the job description now.
It’s really interesting, just working with folks on different air staffs and with people who have been in the business for decades. It’s a new thing to them, thinking about this as being part of the job description. But a lot of them are doing a really good job.
The mobile apps have clearly been interesting to watch. On a bigger level, it’s very interesting to watch what Clear Channel has done with iHeartRadio, not only with adding personalization features, which is a fascinating move, but also the fact that they’ve been cutting deals with other groups. Obviously their hope is to make iHeartRadio become the terrestrial radio platform on mobile. But whether people choose to participate in that or whether they have a standalone station app, you have to get as close to the people as you can. Radio traditionally had been the electronic medium closest to the consumer, [due to being] in your car. Now it’s the mobile device and that’s where stations have to be. They should just continue to focus on that if they want to be able to move into the future and have some kind of access to their listeners they have now. It’s tough because mobile’s not generating the kind of revenue, just like digital’s not generating the kind of revenue, that traditional media does. But you have to be participating there because otherwise you’re not just falling behind your terrestrial radio competitors, but falling behind Pandora, TuneIn and any other mobile ways that people can get audio.
The app is underutilized in many cases. A lot of people are using apps almost strictly as a streaming device for listeners’ mobile devices. But eventually we’re going to have to do more than that. For example, a lot of the information that stations might have on their website, people are going to expect to have some of that on the apps. Why shouldn’t the mobile app also have access to concert information? Why create a reason for people to click somewhere else? You want to make sure you can offer as much as you can so they can have it at their fingertips. They’re already thinking of you as their source for music, we need to continue to deliver on that experience.
There’s not a correct answer to this yet [because] I don’t think we know enough about it. Some people say that every app should be a stand alone station app. On the other hand, if you’re looking at radio in general maybe you say, here’s the Pandora app and here’s the app for another service, and now let’s have a terrestrial FM radio app. That is in effect what iHeartRadio is trying to do. I don’t know whether that’s going to be the answer in the long run or not. But it’s interesting to see people thinking in these ways and trying different things. Because that’s all we can do right now is try different things and then see what people will respond to.
If they have a pretty robust app and can offer more features on it, then a lot of them are happy to be standalone. I think they’re asking themselves, “Is the development cost of an app worth having? Because we have to be able to be available on this platform. We don’t want services like Pandora to have access we don’t have.” Some stations look at it and say, “The streaming we’re getting from this is from actual listeners here for the most part in our local market.” Some others have said, “Look if I’m on a bigger platform, I might end up with people who are poking around from overseas or other parts of the United States. That’s all well and good, but ultimately what I want to do is beef up my brand for local listening and local clicks on the website, because that’s where I’m going to get paid eventually.”
I love it. It’s a great idea. I’m really interested in trying to find out about the ratings and how people are responding to it. Not just one or two stations, but with a bigger sample size to really get a good look at it. I think the idea of crowd-sourcing is great, it gets people involved. That’s what we need as much as possible: people getting actively involved in a brand. It doesn’t get much more active than trying to manipulate the playlist so you can hear what you want to and exclude what you don’t. The kind of people who would participate in that have the kind of passion you want. You want them really heavily involved and being able to see that they can have an impact.
Here in L.A., [Clear Channel Modern Rock] KYSR (98.7) does their thing and call it “WTF Wednesday,” where they are listened-controlled all day long, with double shots once an hour, where listeners go in and pick the song. At other stations, it’s especially popular to do as a night feature. Night numbers (whether it’s PPM or Diary) always tend to fluctuate pretty wildly because it’s generally a smaller sample size, so stations are experimenting there. Some are just completely allowing a takeover. I mentioned 98 Rock in Baltimore earlier. They just started one a couple of days ago called “Mobcast.” Again, I think the expectation of people these days is of more involvement and being able to affect some outcome. So when you create this kind of crowd sourcing program, where they can see the effects of their passion for the station and for the music, it is a good thing and I think we’ll see more of it.
Jelli has a couple of stations that are doing nothing but Jelli: the entire radio station is all crowd sourced. I’m curious to see how that builds out over time with people who end up doing this as much more than just a controlled feature in one day part or one-day-of-the-week.
When I people talking about it, they don’t consider Pandora to be radio. The idea is that this is a station that has been prepared especially for them, and by them. The fact of it not being broadcast doesn’t matter. I don’t think people even think about that. When I talk to people [outside of the industry], they’re fascinated by the fact that they can get what they want; that it’s shaped to their benefit. They can eliminate what they don’t want; they can really control it. The other thing they talk about is lack of commercials. That’s a big positive. With respect to all of us involved in terrestrial radio, that’s always the elephant in the room.
Pandora is a very positive feature. When people find out about it, at least initially they use it a lot. I think the thing that users miss a little bit is the personality aspect. I see that occasionally, not a lot. It’s reflected in their behavior and the fact that after the novelty wears off for many people, they use Pandora a little bit less. They start using terrestrial radio again, because they need to find out what’s going on locally or they like a certain morning show. I think people like personalization but there are some of those other aspects that regular terrestrial radio offers that they’re not getting, so periodically they go back because they miss terrestrial radio.
That’s a good way to handle it, because terrestrial radio is always going to be focused on localism and personalities. Personality is a part of terrestrial radio, and local content on most terrestrial radio stations is also a real comfort zone for listeners. Pandora doesn’t offer that. So I think the way Pittman has handled that topic is appropriate. He wants iHeartRadio to be the platform for their basic product, which is terrestrial radio. But again, why have people tune away or click away in order to get incredibly personalized music? If they want that, well get that here too. And that’s smart. It eliminates another reason for people to go away and helps keep listeners in the terrestrial radio environment.
It’s been interesting watching things settle in and taking a look at what’s going on. I recently told a client, “PPM is the world’s biggest, ongoing radio research project.” We’re learning why people really listen to the radio and we’re learning some things about what they like and don’t like, and that can be applied across the board in any environment, regardless of what the measuring system is. The PPM still casts a long shadow over everything in radio and continues to do so.
It’s also interesting in relation to mobile and these other platforms. Arbitron has been talking about their total measurement system they are working on. Whether they want to be able to measure terrestrial radio and include these digital platforms in that to try to come up with a total measurement system combining the survey information with server-side data they would. Down the road, that is what buyers and agencies are going to expect: some way of getting a total audience measurement system.
We’ve seen that PPM is certainly not perfect and foolproof. I’ve seen a lot of situations where there were sample problems. It’s funny, I’ve been working for Pollack for 24 years, and I’ve got memos that go back about 23 years where we were talking about how tough it was getting to be to get people to participate in research surveys of any kind. That was back in 1989 we were writing about that, and it’s only gotten worse. It is tough to get people to participate, so just in getting the PPM sample, Arbitron has to go through all sorts of hoops. Trying to get people to participate has gotten tougher and tougher over the years.
Meanwhile with these other digital platforms you can actually get exact numbers by pulling server side data. If you look at Arbitron products, whether digitally or the old hardcopy of the book, you see the world “estimate,” even more than you see the word “Arbitron!” But that’s what it is, because statistically these are audience estimates. In the meantime, the server side data is made of exact numbers. So that will be an interesting marriage between those two elements.
Radio has a lot of positives going for it. You look at those Arbitron national numbers where they show that 93 percent of all adults listen to the radio each week. That’s great, even with all of the competition out there. I look at my career at Pollack and over all these years we didn’t have an Internet to deal with. Through all this time, (even though some of radio’s time spent listening has been taken away by other media) radio’s still doing very well in that sense. People still listen to terrestrial radio; it’s still a vital part of people’s lives. That’s something that’s really encouraging and radio is generally doing a pretty good job about asking the right questions and not always finding the solutions yet, because they’re not always obvious. But they’re still asking the right questions about how they can play even better in this digital sandbox.
It’s interesting, that’s the question we get the most. Everybody realizes that radio is a brand that has to be distributed across every platform you can possibly use. The easy part about social media is that radio stations realize there are lots of people using Facebook and Twitter, so stations have jumped in with both feet. For a long time people were asking, “Should we get this traffic just on our website or do we get involved with Facebook and if so, how much?” Then with the overwhelming weight of [user] numbers on Facebook, these stations finally came to grips with the fact that since it’s where a lot of listeners are, they need to be there too. The big thing is that radio stations are getting more nuanced about how they use it and figuring that the conversations are going to happen with listeners on Facebook, so you can encourage people to comment on what you’re talking about.
The other thing stations are figuring out is how to link back to their own websites so they also get some traffic out of it. Perhaps they’re doing a morning show bit or maybe it was something that has a visual element to it. They can talk about it on Facebook and link to the videos they’ve posted on the station website. I think that’s big. Stations have to be involved where they know the listeners already are, but they also need to use that as a way to help generate more traffic on their own website.
What are some of the best examples you’ve seen of radio stations’ social media usage?
There are a lot of stations doing this really well. I see it a lot with morning shows in particular. WIYY (98Rock) in Baltimore has been doing a lot of different things with bits that were very visual. They were able to do them on-air, but also there was a visual element they filmed and then were able to post on the website and talk about on Facebook. Most stations now are doing that as much as possible. Anything on the station’s website, they’re trying to reverse engineer it. The thinking is, “We’ve got this content, now how do we create a conversation on Facebook to talk about it?” You can have a jock talking about something that just happened and you post the video on the website. Most stations seem to be doing a pretty good job of that and looking for every opportunity. If they’ve got unique content on the website, find a way to create a conversation about it on Facebook or other social media.
What other ways can radio use social media better than they currently are?
A lot of people would say for new revenue; and digital revenue in particular. That’s the big thing people are looking for, and that’s certainly what the programmers are hearing from everyone involved on the corporate level on down. Everybody’s looking for additional digital revenue, corporate is looking for more of a bigger slice coming from digital. That’s where social media, andespecially the station’s website comes into play, because if you’re going to get digital revenue, you’ve got to be able to put the eyeballs and the clicks on your own website. It’s about generating content at every opportunity. Anything you can do where you can produce something you’ll be able to post on the website, whether it’s video, audio, text or just photos, it’s [about] putting as much of that online as possible to create as much traffic for the website.
It’s going to end up generating more revenue in the long run, which is a good thing, that’s what corporate wants. It’s also where the station should be in terms of creating a stronger connection with their listeners, because that’s something listeners expect. Use of social media, posting info on the website they want, concert information or whatever else it might be; those are expectations of listeners now. If you’re going to be that music hub for your listeners, they’re going to expect you to have information about the music you play. They’re going to expect you to have content and information about the personalities on the station and promotions, and be able to discuss that with other people. It’s what stations have to keep pushing towards: that these things aren’t add-ons, they are a part of the process now.
I’ve told some PDs that posting social media content or content to the station’s website isn’t just something that maybe you do. It’s absolutely essential and part of the job description now.
How is this being accepted by some of the more veteran PDs you work with?
It’s really interesting, just working with folks on different air staffs and with people who have been in the business for decades. It’s a new thing to them, thinking about this as being part of the job description. But a lot of them are doing a really good job.
Outside of social media, how are stations using digital platforms to expand their brands?
The mobile apps have clearly been interesting to watch. On a bigger level, it’s very interesting to watch what Clear Channel has done with iHeartRadio, not only with adding personalization features, which is a fascinating move, but also the fact that they’ve been cutting deals with other groups. Obviously their hope is to make iHeartRadio become the terrestrial radio platform on mobile. But whether people choose to participate in that or whether they have a standalone station app, you have to get as close to the people as you can. Radio traditionally had been the electronic medium closest to the consumer, [due to being] in your car. Now it’s the mobile device and that’s where stations have to be. They should just continue to focus on that if they want to be able to move into the future and have some kind of access to their listeners they have now. It’s tough because mobile’s not generating the kind of revenue, just like digital’s not generating the kind of revenue, that traditional media does. But you have to be participating there because otherwise you’re not just falling behind your terrestrial radio competitors, but falling behind Pandora, TuneIn and any other mobile ways that people can get audio.
The app is underutilized in many cases. A lot of people are using apps almost strictly as a streaming device for listeners’ mobile devices. But eventually we’re going to have to do more than that. For example, a lot of the information that stations might have on their website, people are going to expect to have some of that on the apps. Why shouldn’t the mobile app also have access to concert information? Why create a reason for people to click somewhere else? You want to make sure you can offer as much as you can so they can have it at their fingertips. They’re already thinking of you as their source for music, we need to continue to deliver on that experience.
What is your opinion on the broadcasters that will be streaming their stations through iHeartRadio? They’re competitors in one realm and now they’re partners in another.
There’s not a correct answer to this yet [because] I don’t think we know enough about it. Some people say that every app should be a stand alone station app. On the other hand, if you’re looking at radio in general maybe you say, here’s the Pandora app and here’s the app for another service, and now let’s have a terrestrial FM radio app. That is in effect what iHeartRadio is trying to do. I don’t know whether that’s going to be the answer in the long run or not. But it’s interesting to see people thinking in these ways and trying different things. Because that’s all we can do right now is try different things and then see what people will respond to.
How are the other smaller broadcasters that aren’t partnering with iHeartRadio working to expand their streaming reach?
If they have a pretty robust app and can offer more features on it, then a lot of them are happy to be standalone. I think they’re asking themselves, “Is the development cost of an app worth having? Because we have to be able to be available on this platform. We don’t want services like Pandora to have access we don’t have.” Some stations look at it and say, “The streaming we’re getting from this is from actual listeners here for the most part in our local market.” Some others have said, “Look if I’m on a bigger platform, I might end up with people who are poking around from overseas or other parts of the United States. That’s all well and good, but ultimately what I want to do is beef up my brand for local listening and local clicks on the website, because that’s where I’m going to get paid eventually.”
What is your take on crowd-sourced radio i.e. Jelli and Listener Driven Radio?
I love it. It’s a great idea. I’m really interested in trying to find out about the ratings and how people are responding to it. Not just one or two stations, but with a bigger sample size to really get a good look at it. I think the idea of crowd-sourcing is great, it gets people involved. That’s what we need as much as possible: people getting actively involved in a brand. It doesn’t get much more active than trying to manipulate the playlist so you can hear what you want to and exclude what you don’t. The kind of people who would participate in that have the kind of passion you want. You want them really heavily involved and being able to see that they can have an impact.
Here in L.A., [Clear Channel Modern Rock] KYSR (98.7) does their thing and call it “WTF Wednesday,” where they are listened-controlled all day long, with double shots once an hour, where listeners go in and pick the song. At other stations, it’s especially popular to do as a night feature. Night numbers (whether it’s PPM or Diary) always tend to fluctuate pretty wildly because it’s generally a smaller sample size, so stations are experimenting there. Some are just completely allowing a takeover. I mentioned 98 Rock in Baltimore earlier. They just started one a couple of days ago called “Mobcast.” Again, I think the expectation of people these days is of more involvement and being able to affect some outcome. So when you create this kind of crowd sourcing program, where they can see the effects of their passion for the station and for the music, it is a good thing and I think we’ll see more of it.
Jelli has a couple of stations that are doing nothing but Jelli: the entire radio station is all crowd sourced. I’m curious to see how that builds out over time with people who end up doing this as much more than just a controlled feature in one day part or one-day-of-the-week.
We’ve mentioned personalized radio a few times with Pandora and iHearRadio. What do you think of it? And do you consider Pandora to actually be “radio?”
When I people talking about it, they don’t consider Pandora to be radio. The idea is that this is a station that has been prepared especially for them, and by them. The fact of it not being broadcast doesn’t matter. I don’t think people even think about that. When I talk to people [outside of the industry], they’re fascinated by the fact that they can get what they want; that it’s shaped to their benefit. They can eliminate what they don’t want; they can really control it. The other thing they talk about is lack of commercials. That’s a big positive. With respect to all of us involved in terrestrial radio, that’s always the elephant in the room.
Pandora is a very positive feature. When people find out about it, at least initially they use it a lot. I think the thing that users miss a little bit is the personality aspect. I see that occasionally, not a lot. It’s reflected in their behavior and the fact that after the novelty wears off for many people, they use Pandora a little bit less. They start using terrestrial radio again, because they need to find out what’s going on locally or they like a certain morning show. I think people like personalization but there are some of those other aspects that regular terrestrial radio offers that they’re not getting, so periodically they go back because they miss terrestrial radio.
Bob Pittman has downplayed the personalization aspect of iHeartRadio, essentially saying it’s an optional part of the service but not really what they do first and foremost.
That’s a good way to handle it, because terrestrial radio is always going to be focused on localism and personalities. Personality is a part of terrestrial radio, and local content on most terrestrial radio stations is also a real comfort zone for listeners. Pandora doesn’t offer that. So I think the way Pittman has handled that topic is appropriate. He wants iHeartRadio to be the platform for their basic product, which is terrestrial radio. But again, why have people tune away or click away in order to get incredibly personalized music? If they want that, well get that here too. And that’s smart. It eliminates another reason for people to go away and helps keep listeners in the terrestrial radio environment.
What is your opinion on the impact of PPM technology?
It’s been interesting watching things settle in and taking a look at what’s going on. I recently told a client, “PPM is the world’s biggest, ongoing radio research project.” We’re learning why people really listen to the radio and we’re learning some things about what they like and don’t like, and that can be applied across the board in any environment, regardless of what the measuring system is. The PPM still casts a long shadow over everything in radio and continues to do so.
It’s also interesting in relation to mobile and these other platforms. Arbitron has been talking about their total measurement system they are working on. Whether they want to be able to measure terrestrial radio and include these digital platforms in that to try to come up with a total measurement system combining the survey information with server-side data they would. Down the road, that is what buyers and agencies are going to expect: some way of getting a total audience measurement system.
How do you see Arbitron dealing with sample size issues and the continued evolution of technology?
We’ve seen that PPM is certainly not perfect and foolproof. I’ve seen a lot of situations where there were sample problems. It’s funny, I’ve been working for Pollack for 24 years, and I’ve got memos that go back about 23 years where we were talking about how tough it was getting to be to get people to participate in research surveys of any kind. That was back in 1989 we were writing about that, and it’s only gotten worse. It is tough to get people to participate, so just in getting the PPM sample, Arbitron has to go through all sorts of hoops. Trying to get people to participate has gotten tougher and tougher over the years.
Meanwhile with these other digital platforms you can actually get exact numbers by pulling server side data. If you look at Arbitron products, whether digitally or the old hardcopy of the book, you see the world “estimate,” even more than you see the word “Arbitron!” But that’s what it is, because statistically these are audience estimates. In the meantime, the server side data is made of exact numbers. So that will be an interesting marriage between those two elements.
Radio has a lot of positives going for it. You look at those Arbitron national numbers where they show that 93 percent of all adults listen to the radio each week. That’s great, even with all of the competition out there. I look at my career at Pollack and over all these years we didn’t have an Internet to deal with. Through all this time, (even though some of radio’s time spent listening has been taken away by other media) radio’s still doing very well in that sense. People still listen to terrestrial radio; it’s still a vital part of people’s lives. That’s something that’s really encouraging and radio is generally doing a pretty good job about asking the right questions and not always finding the solutions yet, because they’re not always obvious. But they’re still asking the right questions about how they can play even better in this digital sandbox.
[eQB Content by Joey Odorisio]
