Making Radio Stronger In A Disaster
Who Are You Really Talking To Out There?
by Ronald Robinson
First, a couple of (rhetorical) questions: 1.) When did Radio become a One-to-One medium? And, 2.) Why was I not informed? That the delivery of Radio has always been accepted as a One-to-One exercise has never, ever, never been challenged! This, because, like other areas of life, the premise was presented with the authority of, uhhh… Authority, and forthwith became: Dogma. As such, Dogma cannot be challenged. Heretics and infidels do pay dearly.
There is no evidence whatsoever to support the proposition that one person is talking directly to another person in the process of speaking on or listening to the radio. To accept the premise is to also exclude everybody else in the audience! As a Jock, I haven’t got a clue which individual is listening (other than my addled, medicated, schizophrenic and sociopathic PD). As a listener, I know the Jock isn’t really talking to me – exclusively. And, as a listener, I can deal with that.
Now, I have had the experience where I have met a listener who has said something along the lines of: “I feel you’re talking right to me.” When that happens, I check for exit routes and dangling boogers. And, sure enough….
Here, then, is a more accurate and more useful premise – one which I have taken the liberty of carving in soap: “Radio is a One-on-Unspecified Medium.”Yet, practitioners of this noble, Radio trade absolutely insist on continuously and as often as possible dropping the, what I have come to affectionately and reverently refer to as: “The Y-Bomb”.
With the utter confidence and certainty that can only come from having accepted Dogma, do they say “YOU”! And every time they say it, they participate in helping to destroy any chances of gaining any real and ongoing credibility with their audience. Of course a listener hears “you” and makes an only momentary assumption of: “that means Me!” but is immediately blown off when they realize the body or content of what is being spoken has nothing to do with them… as an exclusivity.
Now, a listener may not articulate their lack of amusement at being taken in by a linguistic trick, but, I submit, the cumulative affect has been devastating on broadcasters. For someone to be addressed exclusively and as an individual, somebody on-the-air is going to have to say their name. As in: “Melvin Cosvnoski! Since you have gone to the Schlock-107 web page and entered for a chance to ring our “Cash Cow”-bell over 700 times, you now have 107 seconds to call in and either Claim Your Cash or pick up a can of high quality, Glidden paint in any shade of brown you desire!” (Yes, I know. Sometimes these things get ugly.)
Meanwhile, it’s true. Dropping the “Y-Bomb” does – momentarily – get everybody. For a listener, though, it’s like getting a massage with a garden rake. It’s painful. It leaves marks, there are no “happy endings” and there’s also the dreadful realization that the therapist doesn’t really “care” after all. Dropping the “Y-Bomb” is like using flash/bang grenades to clear a kindergarten classroom. Nobody’s amused. Everybody freaks out and lawyers from all over the county get summoned.
Dropping the “Y-Bomb” is like using a “Daisy Cutter” (a BLU 82B bomb that is dropped by parachute and detonated some hundreds of feet above a target) to take out a chicken coop. Yes, the chickens are “disappeared”, but what remains are a smoking 100-foot crater, acres of destroyed buildings and a small number of surviving inhabitants who are now bent on revenge. The term that leaps to my mind is: Overkill!
Solution: Communicators can deliver any message they want by swapping out usage of the Second Person (“You”) and applying Third Person elements – of which there is an unlimited library. “Individual, listener, person, someone who is…” etc.… and my own, fave-rave example: “anyone who can out-maneuver a tomato plant can call and win a wonderfully chintzy prize.” The uppity, downtown term for an audience’s internal, processing experience in this matter is: Vicarious Association. They do “get it”. Every time.
Ronald T. Robinson has been involved in Canadian Radio since the '60s as a performer, writer and coach and has trained and certified as a personal counsellor. Ron makes the assertion that the most important communicative aspects of broadcasting, as they relate to Talent and Creative, have yet to be addressed. Visit Ron's website www.voicetalentguy.com
|
(11/4/2011 9:14:03 PM) Meanwhile, as Jock (perhaps understandably) accuses me of promoting an "impersonal" style, I am obliged to make the important distinction. There is no need for a performer to connect at a personal level - that is, one-to-one. Besides, it's not being done now; it's never been done and it can't be done - unless a comment is directed to a named listener. Not without suffering the penalties the of rejecting a majority of other listeners in the process. The priority is for the Personality to be PERSONABLE. That is, someone who a Listener finds compelling, entertaining, genuine, interesting etc. Humongous distinction here and one which I hope more Radio-folk will be beginning to realize. |
| - Ronald T. Robinson |
|
(11/4/2011 8:25:02 AM) Even as "Jock" offers some respect in his disagreement, we are still going to have these discussions. Here's a distinction: I'm not talking about a jock's approach. I'm talking about a jock's targeting and... about a Listener's reality... parts of which a jock can influence, adjust, verify, distort, enhance etc, etc. The ability of a Talent to have options and make choices in their deliveries could only be of benefit to anyone involved. I haven't eliminated or suppressed anything about a jock's presentation. In practice, I am protecting a jock from crashing the reality of a majority of a given audience at any one time. Meanwhile, that a bazillion radio-folk have made the one-to-one assumption since the hundred thousand watt AM'er in Galilee, C-ROM, ("Caesar's Rome Rocks The Known World") signed on, is no demonstration of its validity or the value of its continued use. As to the undisguised, dis-repectful assumption of "puny opposition": That's possible. Or maybe I just kept tripping and falling into gold mines and bank vaults... year after year after year. I do appreciate how it wouldn't serve anyone (likely a majority) sharing Jock's position, however, to include the possibility that another skill-set made up of different approaches might have been a deciding factor. |
| - Ronald T. Robinson |
|
(11/1/2011 8:18:35 AM) Ronald, I asked several professional radio people, notice I didn't use the term broadcasters...even though they are...and we all agree, that you are off base. Incorrect, and misinformed. I offer this criticism with complete respect for your position as a professional and as a man. I certainly do not mean to be offensive, but sincerely, you are simply not right about this. Consider the fact that from the first moment you cracked a mic, you never listened to radio with the same ears again. From then on, you dissected and analyzed every nuance...we all do, and there have been times I wished that I could just enjoy listening with an uneducated ear...but alas, those days are behind both of us. There is a reason things are done the way they are, that rationale has been carried on the backs of thousands of DJ's and programmers...because it simply works best. That is not to say your impersonal approach does not work either, but given a head to head comparison, the average listener will go for friendly every time. The fact thta you so dominated in your dayparts in the past is a good indication that you were up against some puny opposition. Thanks for your opinions, but remember, that is exactly what they are, opinions. I offer this diatribe as a longtime successful jock who has dominated the comptetition myself. |
| - Jock Harris |
|
(10/11/2011 2:17:11 PM) Indeed they have, Jake. The industry has backtracked and retreated to the point where, instead of high quality communications coming from a Show Business-based source, the lowest common denominators have been stressed and foisted on a disapproving audience while so many of the stations are being run like they were dry cleaning franchises. "Communications" - as a separate field - has been making monstrous improvements - none of which, I submit, are being transitioned into Radio. Again... more to follow. |
| - Ronald T. Robinson |
|
(10/11/2011 11:46:21 AM) Things have changed in the last 25 years. - respectfully, -J Jamieson |
| - Jake Jamieson |
Add a Comment | View All Comments
