An outfit called Changewave Research is reporting results of a recent survey that show "a powerful shift occurring among Boomers away from traditional TV towards new types of online services and entertainment."

Specifically they say that "Boomers now spend more free time online (12.9 hrs per week on average) than they do watching traditional TV (11.8 hrs per week on average)".

And what's driving this trend? The survey result show that "by a five-to-one margin Boomers are watching less traditional television than they did a year ago. Among this group, 62% say it's because they're not as interested in what's on TV these days, and another 26% say they're spending more time surfing the web."

Changewave's research dug deeper into Boomers' thinking. Among the findings:

"Among traditional TV viewers, an astonishing one-in-five (20%) say they're likely to downgrade or cancel their current TV service package in the next 6 months. The likelihood of canceling is highest among Cable (22%) and Satellite subscribers (22%), and lowest among fiber-optic TV subscribers (7%)."

"We also asked Boomer respondents to tell us which one paid subscription they'd be most willing to give up, and again its TV Service (44%) that appears most vulnerable - scoring significantly worse than any other subscription service."

We wouldn't be surprised to see apocalyptic daggers being thrown toward TV after thes research findings. Nor will we be surprised to see the dagger throwers proven wrong in the long run. No doubt TV entertainment will look differently in the future, but just as with radio people won't stop wanting their entertainment (when, where and how they want it). The advertising landscape will change, but advertising opportunities won't disappear. And those who emply direct response professionals will still fare the best.

The word creative is bantered about without, in the end, a whole lot of thought. Yet the word isn't actually meant to be taken literally. We're not "creative" in the art sense - that we're doing something for the sake of personal expression.

The distinction can be illustrated by considering the famous artist Mary Cassatt, whose birthday I know is today thanks to today's artpiece on Google's home search page. Cassatt created prints that expressed something inside her. She wasn't trying to match her capabilities to customer needs, be memorable, credible, trustworthy or relevant.

But good advertising has to be all of those things. And sell. (And if it's radio advertising it has to do all of that in sixty seconds, with auditory stimuli only. And one hand tied behind our back.)

But a huge contingent in the advertising world doesn't get this distinction.

The finalists for the 2009 Radio Mercury Awards were recently announced. Perusing this list of radio commercials underscores my original point: there is a huge contradiction in the world of advertising. These radio commercials are (for the most part) very creative. Most are relevant, too. Even trustworthy. A few of the ads are credible and memorable.

But how many of them sell? (clarification: sell the clients' product or service, not the agency's)

Any? Nope.

The "sell" criterion is the hardest one to get right.

Yet these agencies are being rewarded with awards, attention, accolades and money. They'll use all of this to promote the expertise of their agencies. To sell themselves, not their clients' products. To build their own brand, not their clients' brand.

The word "creative" in the context of advertising is meant to depict the act of creating, as in "making", "developing". Developing what? Developing a piece of persuasive media. We should call it the Persuasive Department, not the Creative Department. Persuasives, not Creatives. "Hello, this is Brett with the Persuasive Team at Strategic Media." Has a nice ring to it.

The biggest blessing of being in direct response radio advertising is this: We know what sells.

It's just that sometimes knowing too much is painful.

One reason is that background music can make it more difficult to understand the words that are being spoken in the ad. Beyond the obvious of being drown out by the volume of the music, the snare drums and cymbals can interfere with decoding words that have "s" or "t" sounds in them.

Another reason putting music in your radio ad is often a bad idea is that it is precisely the absence of music that can help set your ad apart and make it stand out.

From a direct response radio advertising standpoint, we've tested ads both with and without background music and the results support our assertion that background music is more often a negative impact than a positive one. Of course there are exceptions, but the main point to remember is not to make the automatic assumption that music "should" be in your radio ad.

So here's an exercise you can try at home. Imagine you work at a national radio advertising agency and you're responsible for creating super-response-driving radio ads. How does the following story, excerpted from Chapter 6, help you refine your approach to creating radio ads?

Harlan Kentucky - "Die like a man, like your brother did."

This section is from Chapter 6 and follows a discussion of what is called the "Culture of Honor," a social and behavioral pattern specific to, among other places, the American South.

In the early 1990's, two psychologists at the University of Michigan--Dov Cohen and Richard Nisbett--decided to conduct an experiment on the culture of honor. . . . So they decided to gather together a group of young men and insult them. Their methodology was disarmingly simple. "We sat down and tried to figure out what is the insult that would go to the heart of a 18 to 20 year old's brain," Cohen says. "It didn't take too long to come up with 'asshole.'" The experiment went like this. The social science building at the University of Michigan has a long narrow hallway in the basement, lined with filing cabinets. The young men were called into a classroom, one by one, and asked to fill out a questionnaire. Then they were told to drop off the questionnaire at the end of the hallway and return to the classroom--an innocent, seemingly simple academic exercise.

For half the young men, that was it. They were the control group. For the other half, there was a catch. As they walked down the hallway with their questionnaire, another man--a confederate of the experimenters--walked past them and pulled out a drawer in one of the filing cabinets. The already narrow hallway was now even narrower. As the young men tried to squeeze by, the confederate looked up, annoyed. He slammed the filing cabinet drawer shut, jostled the young men with his shoulder and, in a low but audible voice, he said the trigger word--"asshole."

Cohen and Nisbett wanted to know, as precisely as possible, what being called that word meant. So they tried every conceivable way of measuring the emotions of the young men. They looked at the faces of their subjects, and rated how much anger they saw. They shook the young 's hands to see if their grip was firmer than usual. They took saliva samples from the students, both before and after the insult, to see if being called an asshole caused their levels of testosterone and cortisol--the hormones that drive arousal and aggression--to go up. Then they asked the students to read the following story and supply a conclusion: It had only been about twenty minutes since they had arrived at the party when Jill pulled Steve aside, obviously bothered about something.

"What's wrong?" asked Steve.

"It's Larry. I mean, he knows that you and I are engaged, but he's already made two passes at me tonight." Jill walked back into the crowd, and Steve decided to keep his eye on Larry. Sure enough, within five minutes, Larry was reaching over and trying to kiss Jill.

If you've been insulted, are you more likely to imagine Steve doing something violent to Larry? The results were unequivocal. There are clear differences in how young men respond to being called a bad name. For some, the insult dramatically changes behavior. For some it doesn't. But the deciding factor isn't how emotionally secure you are, or whether you are an intellectual or a jock, or whether you are physically imposing or not. What matters--and I think you can guess where this is headed--is where you're from. The young men from the northern part of the United States, for the most part, treated the incident with amusement. They laughed it off. Their handshakes were unchanged. Their levels of cortisol actually went down, as if they were unconsciously trying to defuse their own anger. Only a few of them had Steve get violent with Larry.

But the southerners? Oh my. They were angry. Their cortisol and testosterone jumped. Their handshakes got firm. Steve was all over Larry.

"We even played this game of chicken," Cohen said. "We sent the students back down the hallways, and around the corner comes another confederate. The hallway is blocked, so there's only room for one of them to pass. The guy we used was 6'3", 250 pounds. He used to play college football. He was now working as a bouncer in a college bar. He was walking down the hall in business mode--the way you walk through a bar when you are trying to break up a fight. The question was--how close do they get to the bouncer before they get out of the way. And believe me, they always get out of the way."

For the northerners, there was almost no effect. They got out of the way five or six feet beforehand, whether they had been insulted or not. The southerners, by contrast, were downright deferential in normal circumstances, stepping aside with over nine feet to go. But if they had just been insulted? Less than two feet. Call a southerner an asshole, and he's itching for a fight. What Cohen and Nisbet were seeing in that long hall was the southern culture of honor in action: the Southerners were reacting like Wix Howard did when "Little Bob" Turner accused him of cheating at poker.

If you work in advertising you absolutely must read this study. It is a classic demonstration of how people often prefer things that don't make them happier. In other words, you can't always trust what people (including yourself) tell you - you have to look at their actual behavior. In a world of surveys and focus groups, direct response radio advertisers know that a direct on-air test of a trackable ad will always give you the best indication of how the ad will perform.

According to the research paper's abstract:

"Consumers prefer to watch television programs without commercials. Yet, in spite of most consumers' extensive experience with watching television, we propose that commercial interruptions can actually improve the television viewing experience. Although consumers do not foresee it, their enjoyment diminishes over time. Commercial interruptions can disrupt this adaptation process and restore the intensity of consumers' enjoyment. Six studies demonstrate that, although people preferred to avoid commercial interruptions, these interruptions actually made programs more enjoyable (study 1), regardless of the quality of the commercial (study 2), even when controlling for the mere presence of the ads (study 3), and regardless of the nature of the interruption (study 4). However, this effect was eliminated for people who are less likely to adapt (study 5), and for programs that do not lead to adaptation (study 6), confirming the disruption of adaptation account and identifying crucial boundaries of the effect."

Here's a great commentary on the research by James Hibberd. In part, he says:

"The seemingly counterintuitive findings will be familiar to those who have read the book "Stumbling on Happiness," which explained how the pleasure of any positive experience declines due to repetition and time. Watching TV (or eating a fine meal, listening to a favorite song, etc.) tends to be more enjoyable at the outset. The longer you do something, the less satisfaction it provides."

Hibberd writes:
"So if the findings are accurate, why don't people recognize that ads make TV more fun?

The study authors have a few ideas, but no firm answers. One is that people don't study themselves -- you don't watch one show with ads, then the same show without ads, and compare the experience. Another aspect is that the ads act a point of contrast -- compared to the commercials, the programs can seem more entertaining. And finally, the effect isn't universal -- sometimes ads do not make TV more enjoyable (for instance, if the tone of the ad completely clashes with the tone of the show), and those instances can skew viewers' impressions of ads in general.

Based on the research, the authors had a suggestion for broadcast networks that stream their content online: Stop putting ads at the beginning of the clip.

"Our results indicate that moving the commercial to the middle of the clip -- while not intuitively appealing to viewers -- would actually increase their enjoyment of the experience."

James' post generated so many reader comments - and great questions - that one of the study authors provided a response to many of them here.

Among the exchanges:

Q: Some readers said, "This is simply because viewers appreciate the show compared to the lousy commercials, not because the commercials make the show itself seem better."

Galak: That's something we tested for and ruled out. That's the contrast effect, that in comparison to a terrible commercial, the show looks better. As you described in article, the commercial takes you away from the experience and allows you to reset your level of enjoyment.

Q: "Correlation does not prove causation" is something also chanted in the feedback.

Galak: That's a misinterpretation of how we did the research. We randomly assigned participants to control [the variables]. We showed causation. That's the difference between an experiment and a survey.

And now the big question: How does this apply to radio advertising?

Our view is that some of these findings can certainly be applied to radio advertising to improve results. We're already working on it!

But more than that, her article points to some of the reasons why advertising in the current economic climate is proving so profitable for our clients - why people are still buying, rather than hunkering down in their bomb shelters and waiting for the "sun" to shine again.

Because the Times didn't publish her original article, Dr. Lyubomirsky published the original submission on her blog. Below is her post in its entirety:

"The New York Times published an op-ed piece of mine titled "Why We're Still Happy" (Dec 27, 2008). Because it was cut substantially, I thought I'd post the original here:

***

These days, bad news about the economy practically wafts from newspapers and LCD screens. It's all you can do not to sink into panic or all-out despair.

So, after perusing the latest analysis of yet another crisis symptomatic of the collapse of our economy, another alarming set of news (usually in large bold type) that portends the coming of the second Great Depression, you look up from your reading expecting that the world has drastically changed since you've last taken it all in.

But, for most of us, it hasn't. Gaze out your window. And around your neighborhood, movie house, or grocery. Listen in on conversations among coworkers, coffee drinkers, and fellow moms and dads at school. Most of you will notice few signs that anything is horribly awry.

Ask your friends to keep track of their moods and thoughts at random times throughout the day. You'll find that, all in all, they are not spending their days dejected about the economy. Instead, they are mostly preoccupied with the quotidian tasks and concerns of life. Traffic, dinner, homework, deadlines, sharp words, and flirtatious glances.

How can people remain relatively normal, or even happy and upbeat, at the same time that they drown in the bad news?

Because the news affects everyone, not just you.

Research in psychology and economics suggests that when only your salary is cut, you make a foolish investment, or you lose your job, you become considerably less satisfied with your life. But when everyone becomes worse off, your life satisfaction remains pretty much the same.

Indeed, human beings are remarkably attuned to relative position and status. As a famous decade-old study had revealed, people prefer to live in a world in which they receive an annual salary of $50K (when others are pulling in $25K) than an annual salary of $100K (when others are making $200K). Along similar lines, researchers in the UK have demonstrated that we will readily give up our own cash to destroy others' earnings. To some, such findings show up the dark side of human nature, but to me, they reveal an all-too-human truth. We care more about social comparison, about status, about rank, and about so-called positional goods than about the absolute value of our bank accounts or reputations.

For example, Andrew Clark has shown that being laid off hurts less if you reside in a community with a high unemployment rate, being overweight stings less if you live in a country full of the super-sized, and even being married to an unhealthy or plump spouse makes it easier to cope with your own health or weight problem. Shockingly, if you are unemployed, you will, on average, be happier if you spouse is also unemployed than if he or she is working.

So, knowing that everyone's 401K plan, home value, and ability to obtain credit has declined surely dulls the pain.

After a spirited race, the Dodo bird in Alice in Wonderland announces, "Everybody has won, and all must have prizes." In today's economy, everyone loses, and all bear (a reduced) price.

One of the most exciting fields to emerge recently is the field of behavioral economics. One thing I've noticed is that it takes some effort to translate the findings of research in behavioral science to advertising. Often the full applicability is not immediately clear. So chew on this one:

Dan Ariely is the author of a fascinating book called Predictably Irrational. In this video (you'll have to click the link below because the embed code is not working) he describes an experiment he conducted with ... beer. It is both fun and insightful. Can you distill how this experiment applies to direct response radio advertising?

http://research.duke.edu/predictably_irrational/

Okay, that one is a bit tough. Here is Dan discussing research that is much more obviously applicable, and equally fascinating and insightful about human behavior:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1422253606?bctid=1424672826

Understanding research about consumer buying behavior is absolutely essential. One reason for this is that absent this research-based insights, people very often will substitute their own opinions or beliefs (assumptions) about consumer behavior and extrapolate those to all target customers. This can be a huge mistake. Of course, your assumption could be right. But in reality you are a sample size of one, not statistically significant, and not accounting for the often wide variability of human preferences and behaviors.

We've written a few posts here sharing our opinion about what the radio industry should be doing. Mark Ramsey recently posted in interview with Seth Godin discussing this very topic. Seth, considered a marketing guru (whatever that is) is often quoted in this blog because of his pull-no-punches, contrarian-induced insights. His interview with Mark expresses all we've said and wish we've said on the topic. Radio industry CEO's should take a look. But they probably won't.

It's worth repeating, as we have so many times, that for direct response radio advertisers - those who hold their advertising accountable for results - whether the radio industry gets it's act together or not is not a huge issue. Why? Because we only pay for results.

We know a few businesspeople who'd love it if you did.

Here's how the scenario plays out. The weaker advertisers- the ones who don't or can't measure their ROI with accuracy, or their business isn't as profitable - stop advertising on the radio. They want to cut costs, and advertising is a big target for cost cutting.

That opens up radio airtime inventory, which softens pricing and enhances placements for the adio advertisers who stick around. While the remaining advertisers may see some softness in response rates because of the economy's impact on consumer demand, that softness is offset by lower radio advertising prices and better rotations and bonus airtime schedules.

What we're seeing now bears this out. We thought the election spending would tighten inventory and make advertising in September and October more challenging because we'd be competing with record election advertising budgets. However that's not happening - the competition's just not there.

And that's good news for our clients.

If nothing else it lets us laugh at a few of our funny, and irrational, behaviors. In reality, though, at the core of creating great advertising lies an understanding of human behavior. Consider that as you read these exceprts.

First example: We don't always act in our self interest - so don't make that assumption when writing your ads - because sometimes we are overconfident. (that's a nice way to say it...)

"Consider overconfidence. If investors are overconfident in their abilities, they will be willing to make trades even in the absence of true information. This insight helps explain a major anomaly of financial markets. In an efficient market when rationality is common knowledge, there is virtually no trading, but in actual markets there are hundreds of millions of shares traded daily and most professionally managed portfolios are turned over once a year or more. Individual investors also trade a lot: they incur transaction costs and yet the stocks they buy subsequently do worse than the stocks they sell."

Second example: We don't always make decisions that serve our interests because sometimes we don't know how to think about the math right.

"An example involving loss aversion and mental accounting is Camerer et al's (1997) study of New York City taxi cab drivers. These cab drivers pay a fixed fee to rent their cabs for twelve hours and then keep all their revenues. They must decide how long to drive each day. A maximizing strategy is to work longer hours on good days (days with high earnings per hour such as rainy days or days with a big convention in town) and to quit early on bad days. However, suppose cabbies set a target earnings level for each day, and treat shortfalls relative to that target as a loss. Then, they will end up quitting early on good days and working longer on bad days, precisely the opposite of the rational strategy. This is exactly what Camerer et al find in their empirical work."

Third example: Oh yeah, self control.

"Real humans, even when they know what is best, sometimes fail to choose it for self-control reasons. Most of us at some point have eaten, drank, or spent too much, and exercised, saved, or worked too little. Such is human nature, at least since Adam and Eve. (Well, make that Adam.) People (even economists) also procrastinate. We are writing this entry well after the date on which it was due, and we are confident that we are not the only guilty parties. Though people have these self-control problems, the are at least somewhat aware of them: they join diet plans and buy cigarettes by the pack (because having an entire carton around is too tempting). They also pay more withholding taxes than they need to (in 1997, nearly 90 million tax returns paid an average refund of around $1300) in order to assure themselves a refund, but then file their taxes near midnight on April 15 (at the post office that is being kept open late to accommodate their fellow procrastinators.)"

Fourth example: We don't always act in our self interest because .... sometimes we act in the interest of others.

"Finally, people are boundedly selfish. Although economic theory does not rule out altruism, as a practical matter economists stress self interest as the primary motive. For example, the free rider problems widely discussed in economics are predicted to occur because individuals cannot be expected to contribute to the public good unless their private welfare is thus improved. In contrast, people often take selfless actions. In 1993, 73.4% of all households gave some money to charity, the average dollar amount being 2.1% of household income. Also, 47.7% of the population does volunteer work with 4.2 hours per week being the average hours volunteered. Similar selfless behavior is observed in controlled laboratory experiments. Subjects systematically often cooperate in public goods and prisoners dilemma games, and turn down unfair offers in "ultimatum" games."

In fact, as a society we are now apparently renaming "lying" to something more digestable: "stretching the truth", according to this article from the Washington Post.

"We have created a system where there is not a lot of shame in stretching the truth," said Charlie Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report."

Seth Godin's recent post shows he is equally ticked off about this.

"We value the truth and we enjoy it. And we're always wary about the occasional lie.That's why political season is just so w e i r d. The spinners lie constantly. They lie with a straight face. They lie sentence after sentence, relentlessly... I wonder if this election is going to mark the end of classic spin or the beginning of a whole new class of even slicker lying."

Since writing our post we've discovered a couple of sites that purport to help check the facts of the speeches and ads the presidential candidates put out. One is www.factcheck.org. The other is www. Politifact.com. Are they truly without bias? No way to know, but they're definitely a start.

The question is what percent of the country will bother to question and check the facts.
But what's interesting is what Godin writes next:

"And since most marketers follow the lead of politicians, I wonder what it means for the rest of us?"

Wait - marketers follow the lead of politicians? That's out of left field. We'd love to hear Seth elaborate on where he's getting that. How can marketers follow the lead of politicians? First of all, most business' customers vote every DAY with their pocketbook, not every two or four years, so it would seem difficult to pervasively lie and stay in business very long. Secondly, there are laws against such outright lies that businesses, unlike politicians, are held to.

Seth closes with a sentiment we can certainly relate with:

"All I know for sure is that it gives me a headache. I think there's a huge opportunity for a trusted media source that takes on spin from all quarters and throws it back in the face of the spinner. Show them video of themselves from last week and ask them to respond. Oh, I'm probably just being a hopeful idealist."

There is very little we know for sure when it comes to statements by our politicians. BUT - Let's all remember something: they wouldn't do it if we didn't let them get away with it. So we can't, in the end, point the finger at the politicians.

http://view.break.com/542649 - Watch more free videos

This is fascinating on a number of fronts.

First if you watch the news coverage of Obama's use of an infomercial, you'll see how completely misunderstood the "infomercial" is by the supposedly smarter-than-thou news journalists.

In this clip, the reporter refers to the "late night infomercial", says Obama is going after "insomniacs" and keeps wondering why he chose a certain small network to air his show on. If you were humble enough to do your homework you'd learn that infomercials air at all times of the day, they reach many more people than just insomniacs, and the selection of airtime bought is based on many factors none of which are "has the news media heard of this network?".

And this article at Adage.com is subtitled "Maybe He's Trying to Win the Insomniac Vote". Even a magazine that's focused on the advertising world is completely ignorant when it comes to long form (aka infomercial) advertising. It's fascinating that direct response advertising is still misunderstood. Maybe it's because the media outlets know that direct response removes inefficiencies from the advertising process and holds them accountable for producing measurable value greater than what they charge to advertisers. Better, then, to keep looking down their noses at it.

What's more hilarious is that what the super smart news media is missing: If Obama gets the right people working with him on his direct response advertising, he will have a major weapon in his arsenal - a way to reach millions and millions of people EXTREMELY cost effectively with his message ... where he's not competing with McCain. It's wide open, undefended territory - the same territory, by the way, that has generated billions of dollars in sales for many businesses. If Obama has the right people, they'll be able to test different messages, track their effectiveness, and communicate to different people based on the issues that are important to them. He could target swing state voters and saturate them with his message.

So what should Maverick McCain's move be in response to this? For one, he'd better get a long form TV commercial developed, and he'd be well advised to get a solid direct response marketing team working for him on that campaign. But that'll only match Obama, not beat him. Maverick McCain will have to have more guts than to stop at copying Obama.

If McCain wants to outflank Obama's DRTV move, his best move is to go into direct response radio. Let's look at the many reasons: a) Obama isn't there - neither candidate is using direct response radio - and therefore it's wide open territory that'll be uncontested, b) DR radio is a whole new audience, not typically overlapping with TV, c) because you're using direct response techniques you get enormous bang for your buck, reaching huge number of people with high frequency for limited dollars, d) you can target geographically and demographically with direct response radio (think swing states). The fact is, because of its fundamental characteristics radio advertising is perfect for political advertisers.

His answer is yes, partially. We would agree.

The argument is simple: if consumers didn't respond to the marketing and advertising by buying the products and services promoted in them, those very advertisements would go away - because if the companies kept paying to run them they'd go out of business.

So you can conclude that much of the advertising you see or hear airing for any period of time is likely pretty effective in generating some kind of profitable business result. That means it is a reflection of what grabs people's interest.

"I've maintained for years that marketing is so powerful that marketers have to take responsibility for the choices they make. And they do. But what about us? What about the New York Times reporter who writes an entire column about the cheap grill he bought at Home Depot--he's upset that it didn't come with better service... At some level, isn't he getting what he paid for? And when consumers so often choose the cheapest possible tickets for air travel, aren't we arguing for a lousy product? When I go back to a convenient B2B vendor even though they treated me poorly last time, aren't I complicit in rewarding that attitude?" - Seth Godin

Seth rightly points out that this does not mean marketers are not responsible for the choices they make. They are. For example, if the product isn't really that good, the marketer resorts to lies to sell it. In the long run, that business won't be around. In the short run the marketer may make money, but it essentially amounts to stealing.

Don't like ads you see or hear? Don't blame the marketers. Marketers are not making ads for their own entertainment. They are making ads that sell more of a product or service because that is what a responsibility that comes with their job.

You could say that the making of advertisements is truly democratic, and that consumers simply cast a vote with each one of their dollars.

The Associated Press is reporting about a new pill that shows you can get the benefits of exercise without working out. It's "a couch potato's dream".

Here are a couple of soundbites from the article:

"Sedentary mice that took the drug for four weeks burned more calories and had less fat than untreated mice. And when tested on a treadmill, they could run about 44 percent farther and 23 percent longer than untreated mice."

"We have exercise in a pill," said Ron Evans, an author of the study. "With no exercise, you can take a drug and chemically mimic it."

Now we can eat even more and exercise even less... one step further on our way to a blissful existence.