You've reached our premium or archival content
To access this page, and more great content just like it, you need to become a paid subscriber.
If you already have an account, please login.
Otherwise, registration is quick and you'll have access instantly after payment.
A recent article from the US described how TV audience attention spans were diminishing, so writers and producers are told to make the first 90 seconds the bait to keep the viewer from changing channels to see what else is on. The same applies to radio. Short, sharp and to the point has always been the norm, basically get them hooked. A seasoned professional I know at one of the biggest advertising agencies in Sydney told me that if a client can't get their message across in 30 secs using the same questions of, what is it?, why do I want it? Why is it better than what I've already possibly got? and, Where can I get it? then radio is not the right medium for them. They can elaborate on TV or print media. In the case of promoting a service, eg. sponsoring a child through World Vision, that's a different matter. A 45 or even 60 is already often heard on radio. No, as a rule,keep them 30 in length. Radio lost the serials in the 1950's.
60 seconds is a long time to sell something that you could barely get a 30 seconder. A few ad's (from the US) that I have heard just keep repeating the message over and over. I would have thought with that amount of time, you could go into a deeper explaination of the product/service.
Another thing to consider about the US is that some stations would play up to 6-7 ads per break. So what I hear you say (as we generally do the same), but if we play 7 ad's it is usually only about 3-4 minutes. I don't think 7 minutes of ad's would be good for the average listener.
Making ads 60 seconds, unless they are Auraly stimulating is a waste of time. A lot of copywriters are still breaking the 'rules' (well, where I work they are), by opening ads with....."are you looking for a new thingamajig", and if that was the opening line for a 60 second ad, I would change stations, and hear half a song by the time that ad was over. I agree with all the other posts, the KISS theory; keep it simple stupid. Radio is the most passive medium we have, so if you dont get them right away, will they be there in 60 seconds time, one thinks not! And if you hear a 60 second ad once, next time it starts, you would be like, ah no, not this crap again! Short, sharp, and too the point, unless its a Cecil b Demille production that blows me out of my stereo spectrum!!
60 seconders are great - but ONLY if they are creative, original and expertly produced. A well made 60 is a true delight as the writers and producers can really let the creative juices flow. Judging by the average 30 seconder around these days however, we first have to get the writers and producers with the juice before unleashing 60s as the norm. The ad content of any station format should be as entertaining as the program. The Americans largely achieve this with 60s - but it will only happen in A'Asia with skilled talented writers and producers - and right now, they seem to be in short supply.
Keep it simple. 30 seconds. That's it. Or... make 1 ad worth 60 seconds if 30 seconds isn't enough time. But keep it to about 2 - 4 ads. No more.
I think 60s ads are the go. It gives creative directors room for creativity. I would rather hear a creative 60 than be bombarded with 4x15 cruddy ads voiced by the client. The emphasis here is on creativity, you can do something with 60, time to set the mood, give the info & call to action. Whether it works for the client or not, only research will show, but I tend to think if the yanks are doing it there must be something to it.
I'm not a copywriter, but eager to learn the basics of the craft because copywriters may be at the core of trying to raise radio's share of total advertising.
Famous advertising man David Ogilvy wrote in 1983:
"Nobody really knows what kind of (radio) commercials make the cash register ring. Isn't it time somebody tried to find out?"
He wrote that when radio's share of total advertising was 6 per cent. 20 years on, has radio's share improved that much?
If not, it must mean that Ogilvy's question isn't an easy one to answer. Or maybe it's just no one paid enough attention to his writings. For example;
Ogilvy writes:
"Every copywriter should start his career by spending two years in direct response"
Direct response advertising is pretty dry stuff, but Ogilvy argues that much of it is more likely to sell the product being advertised. Compared with cleverly written ads which might entertain, but fail to sell anything.
I would suggest he speaks of copywriters in general here, not radio writers specifically.
The same applies to the following Ogilvy statement:
"Advertisements with long copy convey the impression that you have something important to say, whether people read the copy or not".
Replace the word 'read' with the words 'listen to'. Why wouldn't the same apply to radio if this was to be true of copywriting in general?
Writing about radio specifically, Ogilvy recommends to:
1. Identify your brand early in the commercial
2. Identify it often
3. Promise the listener a benefit early in the commercial
4. Repeat it often
In other words, high frequency not just in how often you hear a radio ad, also high-frequency use of the same words in the copy itself!
Finally, Ogilvy writes:
"Because radio is high-frequency, people quickly get tired hearing the same. So make several"
My interpretation of this is:
1. Use radio to remind people of the benefit early on and repeat it in every commercial.
2. To keep the message interesting, keep adding new reasons for people to keep the benefit in mind. Don't be afraid to be the salesperson as well as the creative, keeping in mind the more you've got to say, possibly the more you'll convey that you have something important to say; and
3. Since the ads are cheaper than other media to produce, you can makes lots of ads at lots of different lengths, equating to lots of opportunities to remind people of the product benefit in lots of different ways. So why not say lots about the product?
People have more time for radio than print media, so there's more time to say more, yes?
Since radio ads can be chopped and changed quickly and frequently, radio offers the ability of saying something important,while breaking that important message down into smaller, more digestable chunks of information.
I would love to hear some replies to this. Is radio under-valued for it's potential to sell products?
If 60's cost only a fraction more than 30's in the states it suggests value of airtime is less than production. Id rather get good value for each of my 5min max in the hour. Even more important is that the client gets a result. Horses for courses.
I may have failed to get my point across with clarity the other night when I sent that 'doozy' of a comment. Perhaps I was 'a can of Red Bull' short of being fully awake :)
I promise to be more mindful of editing in future, so please let me clarify my point now.
David Ogilvy wrote in 1983: "Nobody really knows what kind of (radio) commercials make the cash register ring. Isn't it time somebody tried to find out?" He wrote that when radio's share of total advertising was 6 per cent. 20 years on, has radio's share improved that much? If not, what improvements can be made?
Well for starters, it was Ogilvy's opinion that "Every copywriter should start his career by spending two years in direct response".
That's a relevant opinion given that $6.8 billion is being spent on Direct Marketing today compared to the $8.4 billion that gets spent on advertising on a global scale (Full report in MEDIA inside The Australian this week).
'Direct marketing' methods are often better demonstrating an ability to measure the response of a promotional campaign than the 'traditional media advertising' methods.
Furthermore, Melbourne's MX newspaper this week reported that a London Business School study found that the bigger a TV show's audience is, the less attentive the viewer is to commercials. Now that certainly turns number crunching (media planning) on it's head, doesn't it?
Ogilvy tells us that creative copywriters need to see themselves as being in a sales role. To effectively apply the same 'direct' methods to 'traditional' ads.
There's a difference between addressing a large audience that packs a theatre and addressing a small audience around a dinner table, isn't there?
It's the difference between mass communication and direct communication. It's all too easy to communicate with an audience without having to deal with them.
A key difference between direct-response advertising and more traditional advertising such as radio ads is the length of copy. 'Direct' favours long copy, 'traditional' favours short copy.
Ogilvy wrote: "Advertisements with long copy convey the impression that you have something important to say, whether people read the copy or not".
Long copy may provide more ability to help bring about a sale. It's been suggested in this forum that radio's role is just to get people in the shop, leave the selling to the sales people, but does this suggestion under-value radio's ability to sell products?
According to Edward de Bono, the three main reasons behind any decision are fear, greed or hassle. For example, a product may reduce hassle of some kind, and a 30-second ad may not be enough to enhance radio's ability to sell that benefit.
Radio also has two big advantages over other media. People spend more time with radio than print media, meaning higher frequency to repeat the sales pitch. Plus it's cheaper to make radio ads than TV ads, therefore there's more flexibility to chop and change an ad. A 60-second ad may not be needed if you can just as easily break the sales pitch down into more digestable chunks of 15 and 30-second messages.
However, long copy is no excuse to be boring. Ogilvy suggests opening lines that grab people's attention. Much the same principle applies to newspaper headlines when you think about it. With all this in mind, I'm forming the view that copywriters ought to see themselves as sales people, not just creatives.
Good points, Alan F.
But, if radio adopts a unit rate (ie. charges 30s at the 60 rate), then you face the situation where comparative cost-efficiencies are halved. However, if you couple this with reduced clutter, less breaks, then no matter how loud agency media departments bleat about cpm, etc., the emphasis is effectively shifted to creative execution -- where it should be!
Okay, hands up from the station that's going to implement the unit cost first!
On creative, I recall Street Remley saying 'give your script room to breathe'. If you write a 30, then book a 45 sort of thing - use pauses, make your dialogue life-like. All respect to David Ogilvy, but radio's much more than direct response, and advertising is much more than retail sales!
Why is it that all regional radio (and television for that matter) copywriters decide to fall back on the same old crutch of "for all your needs ?" or "prices slashed" ... what happened to creativity in copy ? I know it's a case of "bash it out, move on to the next", but unfortunately I think we don't use our noggins a bit more creatively and write an ad that uses different wording to get the same message across - I can almost predict how an ad will come across these days, and it's a shame :(