Shell Like

It’s not often that radio commercials themselves get a mention in the mainstream media, so it was good to see an article appearing in Monday’s Media Guardian acknowledging their existence (as opposed to how much profit Bauer or Global are making – I can’t remember the last time I read an article about radio without a profit / loss figure attached to it). What wasn’t so good was that it (inevitably) focussed on the poor quality of the ads.

Unfortunately, it’s difficult to disagree. But it may be worthwhile to point out that there are effectively two markets within the one sector:

1. The London circuit (which produces more national campaigns and involves ad agencies) and
2. The local / regional circuit, where ads are more often than not produced in-house by the stations.

It is tempting to suggest (and many would concur) that local advertising is generally of poorer quality than ads produced on the London circuit (with just four Aerial Monthly wins in four years), but it is not necessarily fair to make a like for like comparison. After all there are many variables to consider, such as budget, available talent, turnaround times and production resources. Not to mention the “creative talent” at the disposal of the advertising agencies. Take all this into consideration, and the playing fields are probably level.

There are a few points mentioned in the article I would like to elaborate upon:

“So many radio ads are so bloody awful” TRUE.

“Scant attention was paid to the sound of the commercials” TRUE (surely they should have some quality control standards and not just take the money and turn a blind eye? After all, a station spends all that time and money building a brand, as do the advertisers, only to go and ruin with poor quality commercials)

“The problem stems from the low esteem in which radio is held by the ad agencies. ‘It’s at the bottom of the pile. It’s not sexy.’” TRUE. It’s an after-thought that belies the amount of money that goes into production and airtime. Although lets not forget agencies aren’t often behind the local ads. Radio’s not sexy because radio doesn’t care if it’s sexy. If it had some pride in its appearance it could give Megan Fox a run for her money.

“There’s no fantastic looking talent.” FALSE. Absolutely False!

“No exotic locations.” TRUE. But studios are cool, are they not?

“It’s all in the writing.” TRUE. Oh, and the Production. Definitely the production.

“Radio commercials are often poorly written because scared executives and writers do not want to contradict the client” TRUE. What is the client paying the agency / station for, other than their expertise in producing what will work best, with regards to creativity and effectiveness? Making the most of a 30 or 40” slot doesn’t necessarily mean you have to cram it full to get you money’s worth.

There are many more issues to tackle, but this is in danger of turning into an essay, so one final point. Why do the Radio Advertising Awards / Aerial Awards not get a solid mention in trade publications such as Campaign? Bar two paragraphs (one in the “news in brief” section, and another in an article bemoaning the state of the industry), the Aerials are as good as ignored. With the effort and hard work that goes in to organising such an event, and for what is still a multi-million pound market, this is a travesty.

The industry has been like this for years, and so it’s hard to envisage there being any reasonable change. Radio, it seems, is intent on shooting itself in the foot…

-Rich