It’s hard to think of a more maligned medium than radio.
Traditionally viewed as the ugly sister of television, prominent clients
continue to shy away from devoting a large proportion of their budgets
to it and agency creatives look down their noses should they be given a
radio brief.
The common assumption is that because total radio audience figures have
decreased over the past few years, this has resulted in a knock-on
effect on radio advertising revenue. But figures from AC Nielsen-MEAL
tell a different story.
In 1991, more than a fifth of the 33 advertising categories tracked by
MEAL allocated less than half a per cent of their total advertising
budgets to radio. Three categories - DIY, housewares and agriculture -
didn’t even consider the medium. However, by last year the picture was
much healthier.
Of those 33 categories, only tobacco advertisers now set aside less than
half a per cent of their budget for radio, while five groups earmark
more than 10 per cent of their budget.
So advertising is increasing on radio, but not, it would seem, at a rate
quick enough to position it as a viable medium against TV. This year, at
the Radio Advertising Bureau’s Aerial Awards, Robert Campbell, the
creative partner at Rainey Kelly Campbell Roalfe and chairman of the
1997 Aerial Awards jury, attacked the quality of the ads he had to
judge, blaming the attitudes of clients and senior agency people for
making radio a secondary medium (Campaign, last week).
The Aerial Awards were launched three years ago by the Radio Advertising
Bureau as an alternative to the many TV, press and poster award
ceremonies.
Now, every summer, a jury of 12 senior creatives judge a selection of
radio advertising campaigns. The shortlisted ads are then voted on by
more than 200 industry creatives in a ceremony held annually at
Bafta.
Campbell believes that the general consensus is to treat radio as TV
without pictures. ’Nobody pays it the attention that it needs,’ he
says.
’Until some real thinking is put into it, radio advertising will remain
as it is. The tip of the iceberg is the brief and the commercial, the
damage is done way before that.’
Douglas McArthur, managing director at the RAB and founder of the
Aerials, agrees: ’Radio advertising is much better than it used to be
but we have a long way to go.’
Tim Ashton, the former creative director of Bates Dorland and an Aerial
juror, thinks a radical new approach to radio advertising is needed.
’It’d be inspiring for creative teams actually to listen to the radio
and stop producing formulaic work. There are loads of good shows on the
radio and most of the kids writing the ads don’t listen to them. Most of
the ads that we think are good, we only think are good because they’re
funny.’
Jo Tanner and John Messum, the HHCL & Partners creative team behind the
celebrated Still Tango campaign which won an Aerial, also agree that
radio doesn’t stand a chance when it’s compared with TV. ’Aural
stimulation doesn’t grab people as much as TV. TV has sound and vision
and the relaxation of watching TV is a family thing. Radio used to be
like that,’ Tanner says. ’Among creatives, radio doesn’t command the
respect TV does. If you win a D&AD pencil for a radio campaign, it
doesn’t have the kudos of winning it for a TV or print campaign.’
Messum believes the eagerness of radio stations to allow any old
campaign on air devalues the medium. ’It costs very little to make one,
which results in anybody who wants to sell anything making a radio ad,’
he complains.
’That’s why the airwaves are blocked by crap ads with horrible jingles.
It devalues the environment and eats into the quality of the shows. If
more stations refused to take crap ads then the environment would be
better and clients would start demanding radio campaigns that stand
out.’
The client, therefore, has to shoulder some of the blame. Adrian Reith,
the managing director of the radio specialist, Commercial Breaks, and
the founder of the Association of Radio Specialists, believes the
solution is to keep clients well away from their radio ad until it is
made. ’Radio would improve overnight if clients couldn’t read.
Scripts need to stop being approved and should actually be made and then
listened to by the client,’ he says.
Simon Rhodes, the marketing director of PPP Healthcare, who is a fan of
radio, agrees with Campbell about the decrease in the quality of radio
ads. ’Radio is still enjoying healthy revenues and the RAB has been
successful in its efforts to get the medium more recognised in the
agencies. But there are a couple of things blocking its rise. Radio has
failed to receive the currency in agencies that it deserves and I expect
clients have to bear the brunt of the blame. Also, radio is a very
brutal medium and weaker creatives can sometimes have a lot more to lose
on radio,’ he says.
One person who disagrees that the standard of radio advertising has
fallen is Mandy Wheeler, the creative director of Mandy Wheeler Sound
Productions.
’I think that the standard of radio ads is high,’ she argues. However,
Wheeler, too, admits a greater variety of styles would help. ’It would
be interesting if the radio advertising industry showed that it could
work across a broader range of conventions. I would like more ads that
are not necessarily funny,’ she says.
PPP’s Rhodes is pessimistic about a glorious future for radio
advertising.
’Radio has to demonstrate its value in agencies,’ he says. ’As for it
ever being a serious contender to TV, I doubt it. In the way that the
media is developing, radio will not gain in status but TV will lose some
of its status.’
Rupert Garrett, the head of radio at BBJ Media Services, believes radio
will always be TV’s poor relation, albeit a useful one. ’Radio is always
going to be a secondary medium,’ he says. ’It’s always going to lose out
when compared, because it’s starting from a much muddier field. People
are doing things when they listen to the radio but they concentrate when
they watch TV. I would never encourage my clients to use radio as a
stand-alone medium, but all the big players are using radio as part of
the marketing mix.’
.png)
