Branding for News/Talk Radio
Valerie Geller, president of Geller Media International Broadcast Consultants, works to help communicators become more powerful in 30 countries for news, talk, information and personality.
Labels: books, Branding, Creating Powerful Radio, John Parikhal, News, Valerie Geller
She asked Joint Communications President John Parikhal - who has contributed to Valerie's latest book Beyond Powerful Radio "Can an established News/Talk station be re-branded to get a younger audience?" As published on Radio-Info.com, he shares some advice on News/Talk station branding:
Valerie Geller: What are News Talk stations doing right and what are they doing wrong when trying to create, establish and maintain their brands?
John Parikhal: OK. Let’s start with a couple of really important basics:
Basic No.1, is the definition of a brand. What’s a brand? It’s a promise and a guarantee, surrounded by ‘cues’ that remind the customer of the promise and the guarantee. These cues might be jingles, taglines, ‘images’ (TV, billboards, online), and connectors (blogs, social media, word-of-mouth, etc.). Your promise is based on how you satisfy the practical and emotional needs of your listener. Your guarantee is how consistently you meet your promise.
Basic No. 2. Your listener defines your brand. Not you. You can say whatever you want about your station but if it’s not in sync with how the listener metabolizes you, it’s just empty posturing or noise.
So, great branding starts with your understanding of the listener and the practical and emotional reasons they listen. Specifically, practical reasons for listening to News/Talk are for news, traffic, weather, insight on events, predictions, etc. But the power of a brand nearly always lies in the emotional reasons for listening. These emotional needs include the feelings of safety, security, affirmation of belief system (huge on talk radio), vindication, and many more.
Unfortunately, very few radio stations research these emotional needs, which is why there is so much weak imaging focused on non-differentiating ‘practical’ reasons. For example, when you tell a listener you have traffic every 10 minutes, it makes your station a commodity. When your traffic makes them safer or more secure, your promise and guarantee is so much more powerful.
That’s why I’m a huge fan of Nick Michaels and his brilliant work imaging the ‘emotion’ of news and talk stations.
VG: What’s more important, branding the personalities or branding the radio stations?
JP: A personality is part of the brand of the radio station. If each personality doesn’t support the promise and the guarantee of the whole station, then listeners won’t think of the station as a ‘brand’. So, the short answer is … think station brand and then creatively demonstrate how the personality reflects and supports a key piece of the brand.
VG: Last week this column focused on using jingles for News/Talk imaging. How important are jingles and sound imaging to create and cement a News/Talk brand?
JP: Jingles are very powerful audio cues that can support the brand. Unfortunately, in radio, most are clichés and eventually become background noise for the listeners.
I prefer audio ‘logos’ or ‘soundmarks’ which are custom designed to reflect the unique station brand. If you want to develop an audio logo, prepare for hard work. It’s like crafting a hit song.
And, if you’re like most program directors these days, you are doing two jobs or more. Where will you find the necessary creative hours to do this important function?
VG: What should stations be doing to expand their brand using social media?
JP: First, stop making listeners ‘like’ you on Facebook. Forcing them to act like a dog rolling over to get a bone sets a deep subconscious resentment. The latest research on brands suggests a 10% loss in positive imaging after one year if you demand a ‘like’ click on Facebook. In other words, your brand loses 10% of its equity.
The best way to use social media is to support your listeners, especially your uber-fans. Use Twitter for real time help, [and] Facebook if your listeners want to interact with your talent and events. Use your website for top stories (or on music stations for songs you’ve just played), and for pictures of DJs and station events. In every case, use keywords that support and reinforce your brand.
VG: Do 20th century methods — print ads, billboards, TV commercials, give-aways, bumper stickers, T-shirts — still apply? How much of that still works in today’s multi-platform world?
JP: The ‘old stuff’ are all the cues that support or reflect the brand. Almost anything can work if it’s creative and rooted in the emotional needs of your brand. However, not everything is cost effective. TV is very expensive and not terribly efficient for most stations. In some markets, billboards can still work, but not if they are pure utility such as ‘weather every 10 minutes’ or ‘we have the best news reporters.'
And, to optimize, update them often – at least once a month. If you give away T-shirts and your target is women, focus on fit. If you want them to wear a shirt outside, they need to look good in it.
VG: Can you name one station that’s doing it right and tell us why?
JP: KCBS-AM in San Francisco is doing a great job. Nick Michaels is doing the imaging, and it’s focused on emotion and connection. For example, they play to the fear (emotion) of their listeners with imaging such as ‘The news today isn’t just about information, it’s about survival.’ And, they have quirky thought provokers such as ‘Information is like water. What are you drinking?’ They always focus on how they serve the listener rather than how great the station is.
VG: Many established or heritage talk stations are now targeting younger audiences. How can you successfully take an established News/Talk station and “re-brand” to create a new or fresher image for that station and make it work?
JP: It's simple, people will re-brand you if you improve their lives. Start by improving' what you do. [There are] lots of ways to do this: deeper, more insightful, more engaging, funnier, etc. Focus creative energy on the improvement.
Back in the day, they just slapped “new and improved” on the box. Think about how the improvement makes the listener's life better, easier, more validated, etc., and image around the feeling this creates. The KCBS San Francisco imaging around news is one example. Because of the bigger news staff and the CBS ability to get access, you get “closer” to the news, which creates a feeling of specialness in the listener.
That's the emotional hook.
A slogan alone will not work. That's why Oldsmobile is now out of business. It was your father's Oldsmobile.
VG: How can branding play a role in bringing new audiences to News and Talk?
JP: A brand is earned, not created by advertising. Advertising is just a cue. In spite of social media, for radio, most trial is generated by tuning around the dial or word-of-mouth. Think NPR. What’s the slogan? What’s the jingle? It doesn’t matter because its listeners have created the brand. Smart. Unbiased. Deep. Comprehensive. National. NPR meets the practical needs of “unbiased” (to its listeners) news as well as more detailed analysis and insight. It meets the listener’s emotional need to feel smarter, more informed, and a step ahead of everyone else.
A brand starts and ends with how it meets the listener’s practical and emotional needs. And, this means constantly checking with them, understanding them, and working to innovate to give them what they need.
posted by Unknown @ Thursday, May 10, 2012,
,
![]()
Measure The Tragedy Difference: Imus vs Virginia Tech
Last week, much of the nation's conversation focused not on the War in Iraq or Afghanistan. Not on the fired U.S. Attorneys controversy or Karl Rove's "accidental" deletion of key email documents related to the firings. Not how the cellphone may be the cause for the dwindling bee population around the world. Labels: Big Media, broadcasters, Cable TV, college students, Control, Coverage, Government, Imus, Media, Media Influence, News, Outrage, Politics, Radio, Rutgers, Shock, Tragedy, TV, Virginia Tech
Or even the O'Reilly/Geraldo verbal fight.
Instead, media -- and even personal conversions among friends and coworkers -- were fixated on the Don Imus scandal.
At first, his broadcast corporate owners were forced to suspend his national radio and simulcast cable TV show for two weeks.
When the uproar refused to die down (and the ratings on news channels kept going up), Al Sharpton's interest group cranked up the pile-on pressure, leading major advertisers to drop their advertising sponsorships. Once this happened, the end was inevitable. MSNBC and CBS Radio both were forced to cancel his show entirely and send the I-Man back to his ranch to contemplate the error of his ways and consider a possible retirement for his 30-year-plus Hall of Fame broadcast career.
The lesson learned?
Big Media has lost control of their content.
(Well, actually, they lost it years ago...but Big Media desperately tries to maintain their grip with the remaining fingernails they haven't nibbled down to nubs.)
Broadcast content no longer is something that just dissipates after its aired. While most listeners or viewers treat broadcast content as disposable, someone is recording...ready to exploit both excellent content as well as potential gaffs in judgement in order to satirize, criticize, reinterpret, spoof or simply to use as a base argument in the fight against social injustices.
Should the nation have been so transfixed on this issue? Was this naval-gazing really necessary? Will it actually create social change...or will our short attention spans just move on like society tends to move on after every scandal?
(Anna Nicole and Britney was so two months ago.)
Were the Three Nasty Words (which were nasty, wrong, and over the line of taste, respect and manners) aimed at the Rutgers University women's basketball team deserving of Tragedy Coverage?
Because feelings were hurt, did this deserve National Outrage?
No.
Does racism suck, does bigotry and misogyny exist and should we stop prejudicial injustice?
Of course.
Does this country need to make Improving Social Harmony Between Races, Classes, Genders and Ethnicities a national and governmental priority requiring regular conversation and debate in order to move forward and heal past and current injustices?
Absolutely.
This is a Presidential job. It requires Presidential leadership. And it should be a permanent job responsibility.
What deserves National Outrage?
What deserves 24/7 Media Tragedy Coverage?
The shocking, awful and criminal catastrophe Monday morning on the campus of Virginia Tech, resulting in the deaths of 32 innocent, gunned-down victims.
We have two examples of college students being attacked in the last 2 weeks. One group of students were verbally attacked through the crass use of three disparaging words during a radio/TV show those students never heard live on-air. They had never listened to nor watched Imus before this scandal. Their hurt only came after other's made them aware of it. After other's exposed and pushed forward the issue.
This attack did not change the documented and permanent result that the Rutgers is this year's NCAA division 1 women's basketball semi-finalists.
On the other hand, another group of students were physically and mortally attacked by a fellow student packed with heavy weapons and apparent mental issues. These 32 students were murdered in less than two hours of real terror.
This is the story deserving national, interest group, parental, academic and media outrage. Everyone is and should be outraged and saddened. This is real Tragedy.
There is a clear and obvious Tragedy difference in these events.
One is the violent weapon of words, stupidity, bad manners, disrespect and spin. Yes, it was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, brought to attention and fixed; apologies needed to be (and were) made. The other is actual violence, shaking the foundations of trust and security on our valued institutions.
Which event is the real tragedy?
The world wants to know where America stands today, what American values remain essential and true. America needs to heal. It does not need more violence.
Violence should not be the American brand.
There is real anger and frustration in our society. We all play a part in finding a solution.
What lessons will we learn from these two very different issues, these different tragedies?
And how will the media choose to influence pop culture and political action?
posted by Unknown @ Tuesday, April 17, 2007,
,
![]()
Howard Stern and Predicting American Idol 2007
Labels: American Idol, Gossip, Howard Stern, InTrade, Jointblog, Media Trend Watching, News, Pop Culture, Predictions, Radio, Sanjaya, Sirius, VoteForTheWorst
Howard Stern made some news this week, saying he wants to "kill" American Idol by "corrupting the entire thing", hoping "to turn the talent competition into a farce and destroy its popularity."
He's backing VoteForTheWorst's campaign to keep Sanjaya Malakar, whom the New York Times called "the off-key, lyric-fumbling, elaborately coiffed teenager who is perhaps the most talked-about “Idol” contestant ever.
This is nothing new...Stern has commented about VoteForTheWorst's weekly picks for the last three years. What's different this year? Instead of just referencing it within Robin Quiver's news segment, Stern's gave the site's owner an on-air inteview. This ramped up VoteForTheWorst's web traffic, got lots of news services and blogosphere attention...and attracted Stern criticism.
In other words, fresh publicity, quickly attaching Stern to the #1 TV show in America.
Genius.
He has a much smaller audience now on Sirius compared to what he used to have on traditional radio...but he still knows how to place himself at the center of controversy and water cooler buzz. And his fans love him for it.
Does he want to "kill" off American Idol by supporting a part-time website run by a Chicagoland community college teacher? Of course not...it provides easy fodder for him to mess with year after year. And it gives him a chance to rub mainstream media's nose in his crap.
If it's not American Idol, Stern would be attacking some other #1 show.
That's what he has done his entire career. Brilliantly, even if you don't like his methods.
So Stern wants Sanjaya to win. Simon Cowell says he'll quit if Sanjaya wins. According to an online prediction market website, Simon Cowell, American Idol fans and Freemantle/Fox executives won't have to worry about that outcome.
InTrade.com has a freakish habit of (almost) always being right in their predictions. In the last U.S. election, the site successfully predicted the outcome in every state. In the Scooter Libby trial, Intrade successfully predicted the odds of a guilty verdict to be 70% (Libby ended up guilty on four out of five charges -- or 80% of the charges).
InTrade's success reportedly relies on the number of people who use the given "market", however that market is defined. People "buy" and "sell" outcome "shares" online as events happen, tapping into the wisdom of the public.
So who does InTrade predict will win American Idol in 2007? (once on the site, click "entertainment", then "American Idol") As of today (April 1), 83% say a female will be the new Idol, not a guy. 50% say Melinda Doolittle will win the contest, with Jordin, Blake and Lakisha far-behind tied for second-place (14% of "win" votes each).
Only 3% think Sanjaya will win.
Yet, they also don't think Sanjaya will get voted off this week; they think he'll be sticking around a little while longer while Haley will be the one to get booted.
Will InTrade get it right? Maybe, maybe not. Sanjaya backlash could happen...or it might carry him all the way into May sweeps. The odds will change as the show's dynamic changes...and Sanjaya may stick around for more farce value (hey, it is good TV).
Is Howard Stern behind Sanjaya's staying power? Whatever. It's TV. It's American Idol. Howard Stern will still create news ranting against pop culture. Even though he's on satellite radio.
related NYTimes.com article here (log-on may be required) or AOL.com article here
posted by Unknown @ Sunday, April 01, 2007,
,
![]()
Katie Couric brings her legs to the Colbert Report
Labels: Cable, Colbert Report, fresh legs, Katie Couric, News, Stephen Colbert, truthiness, TV

Last night, Katie Couric brought her famous legs to the Colbert Report. Stephen Colbert kept trying to get a "leg up" on her...but Katie knew how to keep her feet grounded while riding the truthiness train.
Politicians can't seem to help themselves taking Colbert's ridiculous bait...but Katie showed she's got more than just gams. Yep, she showed she can "stand" the threat down; she won't be put On Notice (for now).
As for the ratings...well...
posted by Unknown @ Friday, March 23, 2007,
,
![]()












