“I could prove God statistically.”
He describes traditional advertising (meaning most of the ads on your station today) as, “yell about what we’re doing and hope someone is interested.”
His approach to brands is to ask, “How do you behave differently, do different things, make different products or services? Then use marketing to amplify.”
“Instead of trying to convince the consumers you’re different, actually be different…the marketing goes so much further.“
“The thing that makes me sad is that in the early days it was about insights.”
“And I feel like we’ve gotten to the point where we’re subsumed in data—we’re so data-rich but insight-poor.”
“I don’t think people know what an insight is anymore. If I tell you an insight you will feel it. Physiologically you will feel it. If it’s not an insight you won’t feel it.“
That sure sounds like Radio.
PPM has overwhelmed programmers with data (and overwhelmed station budgets with its cost) but how many insights are offered?
The best researchers (and I know a few if you want a recommendation) use data to lead to insights but it’s becoming more and more rare.
Seems like most research is used to do what the guy in charge at the station wanted to do anyway. To play defense rather than offense. Confirmation bias.
Don’t do that. Don’t play this.
How many stations can you name that are actually better now than before PPM entered their market?
Who’s looking at the numbers fed to your station and offering you real insights into what they mean? (I know a couple of guys who do this too,)
If it’s not making you better, making the distinction between your station and your competition more clear, why are you paying so much for it?
Oh, and the quote at the top? That’s George Gallup.