One of the smartest Program Directors I ever consulted had a penchant for going beyond the logical point of conclusion. That is the thinking that if something works well and is greatly accepted, then taking it up a notch or three would bring even more success.
Of course, this is not necessarily the right thing to do because it can change the benefit of the product, service, or radio station. One has to understand why they’re having success, and then have the discipline to stay the course in being true to the benefit of the brand. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be focused on improvement or evolution, but rather don’t change the benefit that you’re known for that has brought you success.
An example I’ve used for some time is based on the decades-long success of one of the world’s most recognizable brands. I don’t even have to mention the name – I can just say Golden Arches.
But it’s not just the branding. It’s what that branding represents. The reason people like McDonald’s is that they have a well-known menu with quality food, served quickly, at a comparatively inexpensive price. Convenient and easy to get into and out of with ease.
The logical point of conclusion is where McDonald’s is right now. They’ve remained true to their brand. To add a maître d, white tablecloths, waiters & waitresses, and take reservations would be taking it beyond the point of logical conclusion. It’s not what’s expected (or wanted) at a fast food restaurant. It’s not what McDonald’s does. They’ve remained true to what made them famous.
Yes, they’ve made upgrades and evolved with technology, and their menus change “somewhat” based on their regional location, but they’re largely the same everywhere. Even internationally, with appropriate cultural adjustments, you know what to expect at a McDonald’s.
Contrast this with recent adjustments made by another household name: Southwest Airlines.
For years, Southwest has hung its brand on open seating, the quickest boarding and deplaning process, less expensive fares, and routes to more city-based airports than mega locations. But as of this year, they are making changes beyond their logical point of conclusion. By the end of 2025, Southwest is launching assigned seats, extra leg room for increased priced seating, dropping the free checked baggage benefit, introducing a basic fare that cannot be changed, and changes to its frequent flier program.
In other words, Southwest Airlines is becoming like every other airline by becoming every other airline.
Keith Cunningham, whose self-designated title is Master of Mayhem at KLOS-FM/Los Angeles, is one of the bright minds I like to occasionally engage with as a way to stay fresh in my thinking. In a recent social media blog, he wrote about the challenges of being everything to everyone, expanding beyond what you’re known for, and where that leads. Which led me to ask him for his “take” on Southwest’s announced moves.
He agreed with my McDonald’s analogy, saying, “It is clearly like the restaurant that has too many menu items, or like the politicians that drift to the center before Election Day. They end up watering down what their core likes the most.”
Using radio rating nomenclature, Cunningham commented, “Southwest P1s liked the open seating and the ‘we’re chill, let’s go to Vegas’ on the spur of the moment vibe,’” adding, “This reminds me of when a radio station broadens its playlist in hopes of attracting a bigger cume. There’s risk – sometimes it’s needed and worth it, and at other times it becomes a big setback. I don’t know what’s in store for them, but the tea leaves would suggest some turbulence is coming.”
Southwest, driven by decreasing revenue, is giving up on what they were built upon and what was most enjoyed by the majority of their frequent fliers. So, what becomes their unique selling proposition? Giving up on a USP is akin to waving the flag of surrender. In some cases, businesses are unaware of what their USP is or on what foundation they’ve been built. This happens most often when there’s no historical knowledge factored into the decision-making process. It’s doubtful that Southwest’s CEO was without that knowledge or research. Time will tell if this move will improve the airline’s bottom line.
We’ve seen similar phenomena with radio stations and at broadcast companies where scale and maintenance are sometimes more important than growth.
A radio station recognizes a fresh music cycle or information approach that is different than what they’re famous for presenting, changes their model, and follows the proverbial lemmings off the cliff. The media market today is so noisy that it’s difficult to make a change and break through with something new, without investing a significant amount of money.
When was the last time you saw someone make a sizeable investment and mass market their radio station?
Look at the biggest radio brands, and the commonality is consistency, even with very different products. Evolution is thought out and applied in a way that doesn’t disrupt listening habits. Avoiding failing the audience’s expectation is an edict. It starts with understanding why people use your radio station. Be true to that benefit and magnify it whenever and wherever it’s possible. The discipline to stay true to the ethos of your brand is sometimes difficult, but it is critical.
Unfortunately, many go past the logical point of conclusion to chase money instead of results – forgetting that when you get the results right, the money follows.
An advertiser wants to bend your brand for a quick buy, and you let it slide. Then you start trimming imaging, skipping the street team, dialing back on contesting. Next comes cutting syndication at night and on weekends, because hey, it’s just music, right? Then comes letting go of air staff.
Keep pushing past the logical point of conclusion in this way, and one day you’ll look up and realize there’s only one conclusion left: “Think how much money we could save if we shut down the station.”
Mike,
Your point about Southwest Airlines having a winning formula for success, then abandoning it speaks to the futility of upper management not understanding their industry or their customers.
It’s beating a horse that died a long time ago, but the upper management teams of the largest radio groups today have made so many deplorable decisions about the quality of their programming and the effectiveness of their sales process that it’s become harder and harder to watch. It’s been a slow motion car crash…over and over and over.
You can’t manage a radio group and lose a few hundred million dollars in the last five years, or in one case $4 BILLION…and be taken seriously as a business leader. The astonishing amount of money that you just lost is proof of your incompetence.
The game has changed considerably and too many corner offices are not changing with it. That’s not cynicism. It’s a rational conclusion when you smash a winning business into a river of red ink and carnage.
Radio is becoming Sears. It should be evolving to become Amazon. While the some of the industry leaders shill for “antiquated ownership rules” to be changed, it’s horrifying to think about the further damage they would do if given control of even more stations.
They had their chance to prove their effectiveness and now it’s painfully clear what they’re capable of. I would think differently if they were in your office this afternoon talking about a long term contract with you for all of their stations, followed by a complete retooling of their sales process. You can talk about owning more stations when you can show a single dollar of profit. Until then, clean up your mess.
The only antiquated thing I see is effectiveness of far too many radio group management teams. Enough is enough. Radio is an advanced, highly complex game today and you need equally advanced expert advice and guidance or you’ll lose money hand over fist.
It’s time for some of these folks to up their game by a lot, or retire and let somebody with some competence step in. Or, just hire you and let you get started with the recovery process.
Mike,
As always, this is phenomenal. Success always requires an investment. It’s inevitable. You have to invest your time, study the data, strategize carefully, make solid decisions, solid hires and manage people and marketing resources effectively. Or, you can hire someone with the expertise to speed all of those cycles up and start reaping the rewards much, much quicker.
There’s a cost to succeed regardless, but going it “alone” carries a lot more risk.
Why have so many restaurant chains failed, but McDonalds became one of the most iconic brands in the world and expanded faster and further than any other restaurant chain in history?
I had the chance to ask Fred Turner that very question over a steak dinner one night. Fred should know. He started flipping burgers in the very first franchised McDonalds in Des Plaines, Illinois, then spent the next 50 years helping them add 34,000 more locations. At the time we had dinner, Fred was the Chairman of the Board of McDonalds. His career there is legendary and he answered the question by attributing McDonald’s astonishing success to their deep commitment to high quality TRAINING.
Fred should know. He wrote the training manual that taught every single owner operator and manager (worldwide) how to be successful in running a McDonalds. He then turned that manual into “Hamburger University,” which is a world class training facility that has since been renamed The Fred L. Turner Training Center to honor his contributions.
Fred and his colleagues at McDonalds figured out the best way to do things, then taught those best practices to every franchisee and manager in the world. It required translators and coordination on a level that was unheard of at the time. It also sped up their successful expansion to warp speed.
The lessons here are infinite, but “going it alone” and trying to figure out the path to success is a slippery slope. Getting high quality guidance from experts who have a proven system and process in place is the surest path to success.
You have no idea how right you are about this topic, Mike. I do! You should open up a Radio University. Somebody should, because the radio business has clearly become too complex to succeed in “going it alone” today. “Guessing” your way through it today has caused bankruptcies, billion dollar losses and lots of unnecessary turmoil. I think it’s time to take a page from the playbook for the Golden Arches.
Great stuff, Mike. Thank you!
(And for the record, Fred and I talked a LOT about radio that night too!)
That’s a great story, Dave. The lessons are aplenty in multiple businesses to those who have clear vision. It’s easy to have that vision clouded. Thanks for your thoughtful response. -Mike
Great read Mike. Your article reminded me of an old adage that one of my PD’s used to say, “something for everyone ends up being nothing for no one”.
Let’s talk clutter. This is a sure way to tell if your station is focused, or if it’s attempting to be “something for everyone”.
Stop sets that are long and stuffed with the same sounding ads, playlists that cover 3 decades or more and have never been rotated EVER, and a website crammed full of “value added” banner ads all add up to a bad sounding, bad looking experience for your audience. Eventually, they’ll look (and listen) somewhere else.
Summer is a great time for some “housekeeping” because we’ll all be busy at the end of the year. Take a close look at your clutter this summer, your audience (and advertisers) will thank you for it.
Thank you Bill. Appreciate your comments.
Comments are closed.