OxyContin Maker Using Radio To Reach Americans As Part Of Massive Settlement.

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

http://www.insideradio.com/free/oxy...cle_73ea44ae-57ac-11ea-8cfd-ef1f0453eaf2.html

4 states are most notable for getting the most ads of the Opioid abuse settlement. Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia

The government’s settlement with the maker of OxyContin is taking the big pharma company to the radio airwaves to help reach people who were harmed by its efforts promoting the opioid. Purdue Pharma launched a multimedia campaigned valued at $23.8 million that will see ads running on radio, television, online, and print.

The goal of the campaign is to drive those impacted to a website to file claims against the drug maker. The various components of the ad will reach an estimated 95% of adults in the U.S. during the coming months.

Billboards will also reportedly promote the filing deadline in Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia – four of the states where the opioid epidemic has been most destructive.

 

[wadio]

>>The various components of the ad will reach an estimated 95% of adults in the U.S. during the coming months.<<

I doubt it! What percentage of U.S. adults even listen to radio?

 

[TheBigA]

I doubt it! What percentage of U.S. adults even listen to radio?

The research says it's nationally 92%, but it's higher in rural states (such as the 4 targeted)) that don't have widespread high speed internet.

I've also seen the ads on TV and the article says they're also running online and print.

 

[gr8oldies]

People seem to not believe that "everyone" isn't listening to their own personal playlist of obscure indie bands or mid-charters from 1963 for a 10 minute drive to the store.

The research says it's nationally 92%, but it's higher in rural states (such as the 4 targeted)) that don't have widespread high speed internet.

I've also seen the ads on TV and the article says they're also running online and print.

 

[wadio]

The research says it's nationally 92%, but it's higher in rural states (such as the 4 targeted)) that don't have widespread high speed internet.

Based on the Nielsen research quoted here: https://mediatracks.com/resources/radio-facts/

... I'm skeptical.

How many people listen to radio?

An astonishing 92 percent of Americans, aged 18 and older, listen to the radio every week. Radio consistently delivers for all age groups. The ability of radio to easily reach particular demographics is a compelling reason for advertisers to use radio. Look at these radio facts.

• Teens (ages 12-17), 94%, reaching 23,585,000 listeners
• Millennials (born between 1980 and 1996) 96%, reaching 71,294,000 listeners
• Generation X (born between 1965 and 1979) 99%, reaching 123,677,000 listeners
• Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) 98%, reaching 41,200,000 listeners

Nielsen profits from selling its numbers to radio stations so one would expect them to tailor the report to the industry's advantage. But what do the above figures mean? Certainly not that 94% of 12-17 year olds are listening to radio - that's far from what anecdotal evidence would suggest. But at first glance it appears so. Looking at the actual numbers - 23,585,000 vs. 327,300,000, not so much.

This article also takes a more skeptical view, noting flaws in the Nielsen survey methodology: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2019/07/15/traditional-radio-america-flat/

 

[TheBigA]

Nielsen profits from selling its numbers to radio stations so one would expect them to tailor the report to the industry's advantage.

Not true. Nielsen profits by selling its research to advertisers. They're the ones who require radio to buy the ratings.

Of course if you have proof that their numbers are fake, we'd all love to see it.

But once again, if you simply read the linked article in the OP, it says VERY CLEARLY:

Purdue Pharma launched a multimedia campaigned valued at $23.8 million that will see ads running on radio, television, online, and print.

So if they don't reach the public on broadcast radio, they have three other platforms.

 

[wadio]

Not true. Nielsen profits by selling its research to advertisers. They're the ones who require radio to buy the ratings.

Fair enough.

Of course if you have proof that their numbers are fake, we'd all love to see it.

Never said I do - I'm just skeptical.

But once again, if you simply read the linked article in the OP, it says VERY CLEARLY: So if they don't reach the public on broadcast radio, they have three other platforms.

That's a different subject - nothing to do with the 92% figure.

 

[TheBigA]

That's a different subject - nothing to do with the 92% figure.

It has to do with the 95% figure, which you doubted.

 

[DavidEduardo]

The research says it's nationally 92%, but it's higher in rural states (such as the 4 targeted)) that don't have widespread high speed internet.

I've also seen the ads on TV and the article says they're also running online and print.

In the PPM markets, radio cume is below 90% now.

The frightening thing is that time spent listening in major markets is down to around 6 to 7 hours a week. In the diary and 20 years ago, the listening was around 21 hours a week.

Ads don't reach cume, they reach AQH listeners. And the amount of listening is considerably eroded on terrestrial radio.

 

[DavidEduardo]

The research says it's nationally 92%, but it's higher in rural states (such as the 4 targeted)) that don't have widespread high speed internet.

The smaller markets are diary markets, as is the annual national study.

Te diary has been shown to show about 50% more AQH listening than the PPM (as demonstrated when the PPM came out with a third less AQH listening than the diary method in the same markets).

I'm in a smallish diary market (ranked 130th) and I don't know a single person here who is not a radio station employee or owner who listens to local radio. It's satellite, streams, "Alexa, play 90's country" or similar offerings. Some areas have high speed Internet (I have 1g/1g for less than I paid in LA just 5 years ago for 50/5) and others have horrible stuff from the other provider. I don't think Internet speed is a big factor, as audio streams don't really use that much data and bandwidth.

 

[TheBigA]

Ads don't reach cume, they reach AQH listeners. And the amount of listening is considerably eroded on terrestrial radio.

Regardless, as the article says, the advertiser achieves the 95% rate this way:

Purdue Pharma launched a multimedia campaigned valued at $23.8 million that will see ads running on radio, television, online, and print.

So they are using all media platforms, as well as outdoor billboards in the four states.

 

[DavidEduardo]

>>The various components of the ad will reach an estimated 95% of adults in the U.S. during the coming months.<<

I doubt it! What percentage of U.S. adults even listen to radio?

Around 90% nationally. Add in TV and online and print, and 95% sounds to be too little a number.

What is bizarre is that they are spending at all in print. Unless there is a serious opioid problem among people in their 70's and older, that does not contribute much to the reach of the campaign. I suspect they are doing that because older legislators persist in believing that newspapers are important. In fact, Sanders has in his platform a strong statement about not letting TV and newspapers be commonly owned, showing a misunderstanding of the need for print to find a life raft to climb upon (this is not a condemnation of Sanders; it's just the clearest example of how the candidates view print as if it were not on life support).

 

[DavidEduardo]

Regardless, as the article says, the advertiser achieves the 95% rate this way:

Yes, that is a statistical fact based on the reach of all the media combined. However, it does not take into account actual impressions, which are, of course, much less.

The classic case is the guy who buys the paper just for the sports section. An ad in the news section or the entertainment one will never be seen by him. But heck, the paper has a big circulation.

Again, I think the campaign is intended to placate legislators who have no clue about media reach.

 

[wadio]

It has to do with the 95% figure, which you doubted.

True. I should have been more clear about which figure I was questioning.

 

[TheBigA]

Again, I think the campaign is intended to placate legislators who have no clue about media reach.

I've received direct mail on similar settlements, and it goes right in the trash. So AFAIC it doesn't matter what they do.

It's just great news for ad-supported media because they need money in the 1st quarter.