1) Build new audience measurement metrics and tracking; attend to demographics in how we engage listeners.
WORT must commit the resources necessary to acquire and monitor audience metrics and utilize the data to broaden our audience and improve listener engagement.
Comment from a participant in Wednesday’s Public Session:
“Arbitron ratings are notoriously inaccurate, especially for community stations like WORT! Please don’t be sucked into thinking this information will be of any “real” help!! Don’t waste your money on this garbage.”
I agree. They’re not so useful to noncommercial, community stations as the data sample is small enough that we barely show up on most of them. Also, they don’t reflect online listenership at all. We have some recent Arbitron data that was analyzed, and several years of the Arbitrons were collected so they could be compared year-to-year. However, they’ve gotten much more expensive in the last few years and I think we need to spend that money on other types of audience surveys for a while now.
I shouldn’t necessarily have said “I agree” because I do not think they are garbage, but there are definitely problems.
Comment from another participant in Wednesday’s Public Session:
“We could get a lot more mileage from our ‘data.’ This requires a lot of training – my sense is most folks at WORT are just learning ‘what’s possible.’ This has been a big revolution in business over the past decade – eventually WORT needs to catch up.”
Comment from paper submission to WORT2020 mailbox:
“WORT has addresses for donors – ask them to fill out weekly surveys of their program listening and have a volunteer compile them vs. a professional group to send/compile.
Not sure how listenership data as a function of day and time can be obtained with reasonable accuracy at a reasonable cost. But it is critical to obtain periodically, like at least twice a year. Otherwise WORT is flying blind and cannot know whether it is serving its community.
Comment from a participant in Wednesday’s Public Session:
“Make data available regarding online listenership. Maybe online polling or polling through a community weekly.”
This proposal is less of a priority to me. Perhaps listener surveys could be used if this indeed is thought to be important. The way this is written it sounds like the way public radio talks, not the orientation of community radio. When shows on wort are considered part of the community, they have better “listener engagement.” For example, many people have pointed to how successful wort was during the Wi uprising. This wasn’t because of some fancy way of “monitoring metrics.” It was because wort was part of the community.
What resources? Need more specificity and justification.
Notes on this proposal from the roundtable discussion at March 28th Public Session:
General consensus – yes, important
How do we set our bar?
Is comparison to national numbers the best way for WORT? Should we set our own standards?
When evaluating listeners, also look at commercial competitors.
Concern about whether expensive Arbitron data captures useful info for our size station. Alternatives?
I agree that knowing who and how many is listening is important. But I think finding out more about what needs radio fills for people is perhaps more important. This might be especially true for the 20-somethings that have been referenced in some of the planning material. Would they appreciate WORT as a place to discover new music (different kinds of shows?), as an alternative news source, as entertainment in the car?
This kind of information would inform some of the other discussions about things to offer. The classic way to get this kind of information is focus groups.
I’ve been thinking along those lines a lot lately. I’m around people in their 20s a lot, that are hip to the music and talk issues we’re offering and who also enjoy being introduced to new things. They’re seeking to be drawn into a community, they’re ripe for volunteering and donating. They do NOT have radios, except maybe in their car, where they may prefer hearing CDs. They have smart phones, ipods, computers & laptops — they listen to music on those, or dock their iPad or whatever to their stereo — but now they choose their sources in a way that we didn’t use to, because we didn’t have so many choices or the ability to build our own playlists or channels. I’ve found most people use iTunes, or a similar source that lets you switch around between streams & downloads and can be taken or accessed anywhere.
So where does WORT fit in, how do we get into their rotation?
We need to keep devoting resources to local programs and offering what they truly can’t find anywhere else. We need to use every connection we have to promote ourselves alongside the other media we’re competing with, and once they’ve bookmarked and subscribed to our updates, we keep giving them a reason to TUNE IN RIGHT NOW.
I think that is excellent insight by Velveteen Sky.
Considering WORT’s future raises many questions.
One might consider the who, why, and technology of the origins of WORT.
It was started by people who for various reasons wanted and had the energy to create independent radio.
For these founders, it was relevant in many ways, and they of course used the most accessible mass media technology of the time – radio. As it turned out it was relevant enough to the community for it to still be here today. IMO it is the most potent catalyst for the promotion/development of Madison’s local culture, but then I’m a member of the declining listernership.
35+ years later, in a changed world with a new generation or 2 in the community it remains a beautiful thing, but what is its relevance to the community? “How do we remain relevant” is a much different challenge than “Hey, lets start a commercial-free independent radio station because it will be fun and important”.
What would WORT look like if people with the same motivation were starting it up today? IMO, without the radio component, I don’t think it could be done as the web has too much to offer for a local website to become so useful – what would become of Capitol Newspapers or even Isthmus if they didn’t have their print publications? Nonetheless, what would it look like?
So given that WORT has become the institution that it is, how does it maintain its relevance?
Keeping in mind that non-mainstream news and culture appeal to a small percentage of the population, it seems that the total potential audience is not that big to begin with.
Given the diversity of local culture, and the infinite power of the web to provide cultural resources, what are the common issues that WORT can be a conduit for addressing? We do a great job of providing news (while abuse from the Corporatocracy is more destructive on the lives of the most vulnerable, everyone is the ultimate target). We promote and participate in many community events (and when I think about it, it seems we can push our identity a bit more at these events). What other activities and services can WORT offer to engender more connection to members of the community?
To address Velveteen’s observation – what are people listening to? Are there central sources of information/culture that WORT could compliment or participate in? For example, my 22 y/o daughter recently added a bunch of podcasts to my iTunes:
Democracy Now, Freakonomics, Point of Inquiry, Risk!, Stuff Mom Never Told You, and WNYC’s Radiolab.
That is a lot of listening time! I don’t know how WORT fits into this information environment. Do all the local shows become podcasts as well? More live events? Programs that engender community discussions of some of the popular topics bouncing around the web?
My 2 cents…