(By Bob McCurdy) Last Tuesday’s election and its aftermath got us thinking about a word that’s been mentioned a lot lately, “polarization,” and what might be causing it.
Politically, many of us knowingly or otherwise create our own personal political “honeycombs,” largely due to media fragmentation, as there’s a radio station, TV channel, website, blog, or publication for just about every political slant. But instead of hexagonal wax walls built by bees, we’re building our own individual political “walls” which are contributing to this polarization and isolation.
This same “walled” phenomenon is increasingly raising its head in advertising. As a result of their digital activity, and largely unbeknownst to many, big data and increasingly powerful algorithms have boxed consumers into their own personalized media “honeycombs.”
These political and advertising “walls” are analogous to a proverbial echo chamber. Wikipedia describes an “echo chamber” as “a situation in which information, ideas, and beliefs are amplified or reinforced by repetition inside a “closed” system, where different or competing views are censored, disallowed, or otherwise under-represented.” Sound familiar?
The ability to track our “thumbing,” online travels and social media posts is contributing to an increasingly “closed”/isolated advertising experience, with consumers being progressively served advertisements from products or services they already use, have previously used, or have searched for.
The antidote to this advertising “echo chamber” is “broadcast,” which is defined in the dictionary as “making something widely known”,”
Broadcast:
– is “inclusive” rather than “exclusive,” and exposes consumers to products and services that they would want, but don’t yet know they want.
– is about “reach,” and most retail growth of any kind is the result of getting those who haven’t previously bought, to buy.
– is necessary in getting a timely commercial message efficiently and effectively communicated.
– enables us to escape digitally erected advertising echo chambers. Hyper-targeting, re-targeting, and behavioral targeting play an important role in media campaigns, but as P&G recently discovered, getting a message communicated to more people out-performed those built upon some pre-specified, behavioral criteria.
– is serendipity at its finest, the chance meeting between a willing consumer and an advertised product.
– can “prime” the consumer who is not yet a customer.
– covers all the bases by reaching those who currently buy, have previously bought, are thinking about buying, as well as those who have the wherewithal to buy in the future.
– effectively eliminates advertising and marketing isolation enabling the consumer to be exposed to their full range of purchasing options.
And the most cost efficient and effective way to accomplish the above, eliminate any media echo chambers, and knock down digitally erected media walls, continues to be broadcast radio.
So the takeaway is that “broadcast” is not only necessary for advertisers, it just might even be more necessary to the continued health of our democracy.
I wonder if Bob would also be willing to consider how even more powerful our medium could be – beyond the stellar points he makes in this article.
Although radio suffered from the lack of being significantly engaged by politicians this cycle, I would argue that the electorate was absolutely manipulated by electronic media – television in particular.
This wouldn’t be mainly as a result of produced commercials, but rather as a result of the “coverage”. People may find something sinister about that premise, but the results are still significant – and worthy of serious consideration.
I submit that radio has been and continues to be an extraordinarily unexploited medium. We radio-people have yet to pay much attention to how, specifically, we can advance that premise.
As Bob extolls – radio can have a massive impact. He demonstrates how it (we) are primed to do just that. Necessary behaviours, however, are not assured.
Still – very compelling material.