What Makes a Good Radio Remote: Factors Leading to Perceived Cost-Effective and Well-Received On-Site Radio Promotional Sales Ev

Because of the small number of markets selected, all radio stations licensed to that market in the most recent Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook were contacted and solicited for cooperation. In addition, it was considered important to obtain information regarding attitudes toward remotes from stations which did not do live remotes as well as stations which did offer remote broadcasts as part of sales and promotional packages. General managers, sales managers, and promotion managers at each station were surveyed about their attitudes toward radio station remotes and what made them effective. Station managers were also requested for help in identifying firms and businesses that used radio remotes. These, in turn, would be surveyed about attitudes toward radio remote broadcasts and their effectiveness.

Pretest

Once markets had been selected, the surveys and procedures were pre-tested in Johnson City, a nearby small market. First, radio station personnel were contacted and interviewed over the phone on their use of radio remote broadcasts and their opinions as to their effectiveness. The structured interview method was used; a series of guide questions and traditional closed-response survey questions were used with open-ended questions and opportunities for the respondent to elaborate on their responses. During the pretest of this instrument, it was found that the targeted station managers' time constraints made completion of telephone interviews sometimes problematic. As a result, the survey methodology was expanded to include in-person interviews scheduled for the research team's visits to the markets, and/or the sending (by fax) of the survey instrument form, having the instrument completed at the respondent's leisure, and faxed back. While the "fax-back" format did limit the ability to explore and/or prompt certain responses, it significantly increased the response rates for station personnel. Experience with the initial surveys suggested the need for some clarification of wording, and the addition of a few categories to some of the response choices.

Second, in conjunction with the initial station contacts, information on upcoming remotes and business clients for remotes was solicited. Using this information, members of the research team scheduled visits to each market to meet with station personnel and attend remote broadcasts. Businesses hosting the remotes were contacted in order to obtain their permission to observe the remote event, and to survey people attending the event. The research team also offered to share the results of that site's audience survey with the business. Where such permission was granted, several members of the research team visited the remote event. When arriving at the event site, they introduced themselves to the remote clients and the radio station personnel who were at the site, and once again asked for permission to observe and survey. If client or station personnel had any suggestions about where to conduct surveys, or where or when it would be best to talk to customers/audience members, those suggestions were followed. The research team tried to minimize any possible interruption of normal behaviors at the remotes.

Data collection was as systematic as possible to reduce selection bias. The survey team was positioned at the main entrance of the remote site and gave the short preprinted surveys to each person who approached the site. In addition, if the person requested, one of the survey team asked the survey questions and recorded the responses on the form. Members of the team also observed general behaviors, and the interactions among station personnel and other people attending the remote event. The initial pre-test showed little need to substantively revise those procedures.

Main Study

Once the changes in the surveys and methods prompted by the results of the pre-test were made, the research team contacted radio stations in the selected markets by telephone, and collected information about the stations and their use of remote broadcasts. This initial information was gathered to facilitate travel planning, and ensure the opportunity to talk to as many station personnel as possible, and to visit a range of radio remote broadcasts. Throughout this initial contact, attempts were made to complete station managers' surveys. On-site data collection was scheduled between July and November 1996. During the last few weeks of the data collection period the department fax machine began to develop technical difficulties. It is very possible that a number of fax-back responses were lost due to this technical malfunction, particularly some from businesses.

At this point, the audience/customer surveys were coded and entered into a database for analysis. Notes from on-site observations were collated and analyzed, as were the questionnaire responses from station personnel and businesses. While the researchers obtained generally strong cooperation from businesses and stations, it was somewhat difficult to get information on previous remote purchasers from stations, reducing the number of potential business responses. Further, the response rates for structured interviewing and the fax-back surveys were disappointing: Only fourteen surveys were returned by businesses, two of which were not fully completed. As noted above, technical problems with our primary fax machine may have contributed to the low response rates.

Main Study Sample

Radio Stations

Researchers used the 1996 Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook to contact by telephone every station in each of the five markets. These five markets have approximately 125 stations licensed to them. Of those 125, every station except two were contacted (stations programmed entirely by satellite that did not do remotes). Because of the complexities of group ownership, these 123 stations produced a list of 88 people (with one or more titles of General Manager, Sales Manager, Program Director, Operations Manager) who managed or were responsible for handling remotes. This was because some people had more than one title at a station, while others had one title but were over multiple stations.

A total of 88 surveys were mailed and 31 were returned for a response rate of roughly 35%. Responses came from the following: Atlanta (n=4), Knoxville (n=7), Chattanooga (n=6), Myrtle Beach (n=5), and Lubbock (n=9). The surveys requested comprehensive station information regarding radio remotes: equipment, staffing, scheduling, cost and pricing, and expectations.

Business Clients

Businesses that use radio station remotes were also contacted. Firms in each market surveyed were asked to fill out surveys on their use of radio remotes, as well as provide their thoughts about what made for effective radio remote broadcasts. As mentioned earlier, only 14 firms returned completed surveys. This sample included one local business respondent who was interested in remotes, but had not yet bought a remote package. This makes the sample of business responses too small to draw firm conclusions from the data. However, there are several trends in the responses.

Of the 14 surveyed, nine were local businesses who used remotes from 3 or 4 per year to 4 or 5 per month "in season." Four businesses were regional product distributors that used remotes ranging from 3 to 4 times per year to one-per-week.

Audiences

Research investigators attending radio station remotes were given permission to ask attendees to help by filling out short audience surveys. Interviewers approached the first available attendee, identified themselves as researchers, and requested the opportunity to ask questions. After a refusal or a finished interview, the researcher proceeded to approach the next available respondent. Overall, an estimated 80% of those approached agreed to participate, resulting in 432 audience survey questionnaires. The method of recruiting respondents and the cultural context of some events (some bars, concerts, and even a 4th of July picnic) resulted in some incomplete surveys. The exploratory nature of this study and the relatively small sample size suggested using all available data in the analysis.

Out of 432 responses, 71% came from the sales remotes and 29% came from promotional remotes. In terms of gender (n=410), more men than women responded (53% to 47%). Regarding the ethnic: composition (n=406), roughly 75% were Caucasian, 15% Hispanic, and the other 10% were evenly split among Black, Native American, and Other. In terms of age, most of those responding (80% of 424 responses) were in their 20s or 30s. The surveys asked questions pertaining to remote attendance and personal perceptions of various aspects of radio remotes.

Results

This study was an exploratory investigation into the nature of radio remotes; who buys them, who sells them, and who attends them. Despite problems with data collection, various aspects of radio remotes, their use, and their importance were provided.

One of the underlying goals of this study was to identify common perceptions of radio remotes as well as gather descriptive information about the remote itself. Responses from radio station personnel suggest that remotes are unquestionably important revenue generators for radio stations. Overall, the typical radio remote tends toward three hours in length, with a median price (typically found in a medium-size market) of $1200.

Generally the stations in the larger markets charged more for remotes, but stations in the smaller markets tended to report greater reliance on the revenues these events generated. While large market stations charge up to $15,000 for a three-hour remote, they report that remotes generate roughly seven-percent or less of their overall station revenues. Conversely, radio personnel in the smaller markets reported that up to 15-25% of station revenues come from remotes. These stations may charge as little as $300 for a two-hour remote.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates