Does it make sense to advertise on “no-chatter” stations?

[BlueHen]

There have been some interesting posts recently about jockless formats and their advantage when it comes to the profitability of radio stations. Last week under the thread “Despite what we knew in the past,” there was a comment about Sunny and Ben being background stations. If people want music-intensive formats and aren’t listening to any of the chatter, what would be the attraction of such a station to an advertiser?

[John1]

> There have been some interesting posts recently about
> jockless formats and their advantage when it comes to the
> profitability of radio stations. Last week under the thread
> “Despite what we knew in the past,” there was a comment
> about Sunny and Ben being background stations. If people
> want music-intensive formats and aren’t listening to any of
> the chatter, what would be the attraction of such a station
> to an advertiser?
>

The captive audience in offices and stores where such stations are used as background listening.  Just because they aren't doing a lot of talking, the commercials are still heard.  I've heard Sunny in stores and the commercials come through loud & clear to people who might not otherwise listen to the station.

[Jim_Hicks]

WJJZ is a good example of how this format alteration helps advertisers.

As the station evovled into an R&B station which threw in some contemporary jazz instrumentals, the dj evolved also.  They talked more.  And more.  And then even more.  Added to this constant chatter were commercial breaks of 4 or 5 minutes in length.  It got to be too much for even the greatest Smooth Jazz fan.  The seemingly never ending chatter meant little of it was actually absorbed by the listener, who simply wanted it all to stop.  That's bad news for the people spending ad money on the station.

Now, with the V/T jocks talking for 30-seconds a few times an hour, there is less talking overall.  That means whatever talking there is will stand out to the listener.  Less talking means each ad stands out more and actually has a chance of being listened to, which means better results for the advertiser.

Saying a station is a "background" station does not mean people are not really lisening.  It means people hear the music but are not singing along, etc.  The change of pace, two or three ads, are actually heard by the listener.  It isn't lost in all the clutter of jocks wanting to hear themselves talk without saying anything worth hearing.


> There have been some interesting posts recently about
> jockless formats and their advantage when it comes to the
> profitability of radio stations. Last week under the thread
> “Despite what we knew in the past,” there was a comment
> about Sunny and Ben being background stations. If people
> want music-intensive formats and aren’t listening to any of
> the chatter, what would be the attraction of such a station
> to an advertiser?
>

[pifflestick]

> > There have been some interesting posts recently about
> > jockless formats and their advantage when it comes to the
> > profitability of radio stations. Last week under the
> thread
> > “Despite what we knew in the past,” there was a comment
> > about Sunny and Ben being background stations. If people
> > want music-intensive formats and aren’t listening to any
> of
> > the chatter, what would be the attraction of such a
> station
> > to an advertiser?
> >
>
> The captive audience in offices and stores where such
> stations are used as background listening.  Just because
> they aren't doing a lot of talking, the commercials are
> still heard.  I've heard Sunny in stores and the commercials
> come through loud & clear to people who might not otherwise
> listen to the station.
>
So we have opinions on both sides and each is persuasive.  Any scientific data or long term research that can solve the debate?