WHEN IS CHANGE REALLY CHANGE? Greg Diamond – ByrnesMedia Change is good and without it, we are destined to fail!
I have always believed strongly in that sentiment, but I have also witnessed many instances where something was painted over as having changed, but in reality it was, at best, a modification.
In the past few weeks I have come across a couple more instances of this practice that, without pointing fingers, did cause me to think further on this topic.
The dictionary describes change as, “to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone.”
Taken on those terms, one could state the argument that making a minor staff adjustment or slightly shifting a format direction would qualify one to pronounce to the world that “change” had been effected. In reality, though, there is something cynical about this tact that strikes me more as just taking the intellect of the listener (the customer) for granted… even insulting that intellect. The adage that comes to mind is, “Don’t snow the snowman!”
I would optimistically hope that this is not the case when stations announce they have changed when they really haven’t. However, these situations are very risky, regardless of the motives behind them.
To say something is “new” implies that something fundamental like the complete formatic direction or the entire morning show has been changed. A listener, when sampling this “new” product should be able to quickly discern the difference, but if no noticeable alteration is apparent, then the average listener is left wanting and, to a degree, betrayed. This response is as likely to be unconscious as conscious, but a negative reaction, whether felt or thought, is still negative.
We get far closer to our station than a listener ever will or ever can. To us, making a music category shuffle can immediately alter our sound, but then, we have the intimate knowledge of which songs went into the active run and which ones came out. Does the audience have this information? This also applies to other areas like staffing, imaging, etc.
Our inability to listen more as a listener could be a major reason why stations sometimes fall into the trap of calling something “changed” when no substantial alteration from the audience’s standpoint has been made.
Repackaging is, however, a part of every successful business and we see it all the time with other consumer goods. It’s the “Proctor & Gamble Effect” where they present re-branded products like the “All New Tide” or by adding 15% more ‘stuff’, they will create the “All New ‘X’ Shampoo.” This is a proven ploy and, to a degree, it also works with our product. But the key is to know when something really warrants crying wolf over and when to hold off on those most grandiose statements for other important opportunities down the road.
When a “change” is required, go ahead and do what’s necessary and trumpet your achievement. This is in keeping with the three basic tenets of programming:
However, make the “change” for the right reason – a clear benefit for the listener and hence, you. Also, make the “change” significant. Don’t run the risk of alienating the listener by parading half-measures as being true, quantifiable “change.” Remember, your modifications will still be beneficial to the listener and should be noted in your imaging and spoken word, but they do not always equal something as all-encompassing as a format change or a completely new morning show.
Oh, by the way, a new morning show is something that is often best left without the fanfare you may feel it should receive… but we’ll leave that for some future article.
In the meantime, give your audience (your customers) the credit and the respect they deserve. |