Dave Van Dyke

Dave Van Dyke was raised in radio, plying his talents in both programming in management. After 25 years, where we held posts such as VP at KCBS/Los Angeles and senior management positions at Westinghouse, Viacom, Infinity and ABC Radio Networks, Van Dyke started Bridge Ratings so he could better understand the listening behavior of the radio audience. It has led to a steady stream of eye-opening surveys, part of which are posted on the Bridge Ratings website. One of the most recent surveys, on Audio Media Usage, has been reported on and debated industry-wise. Here, Van Dyke offers further details on that study and on the research business as a whole.

Why did you decide to get into the research business?

My background includes programming and general management, so I've always been interested in what the audience is thinking and why. When I left CBS Radio/Los Angeles in 2001, I thought it would be helpful to the industry to develop something that would provide heretofore unavailable listener research. Survey questions had always been perceptual in nature, and I wanted to find out more about the behavior of media users and the typical audience estimates. That's what we're doing at Bridge Ratings. Our client list has since evolved to include radio and associated firms interested in media consumption by all radio users

Has your methodology changed over the years?

The technology has advanced our understanding of the audience; as we have done more studies, that has given us the opportunity to improve the way we interview and recruit samples in order to make our studies more representative while improving the data's accuracy. We've also had proprietary predictive software developed for Bridge Ratings projection studies, which helps understand intended behavior.

The basic approach to research hasn't change all that much, but technology, consumption devices and faster computers and software allow us to better monitor audience behavior.

How have challenges to recruiting a representative sample changed over the years?

We always are striving to get as close to a perfect representative sample as possible, however, in recent years it has required a significant number of phone attempts to achieve the necessary sample. We have also expanded our use of other interviewing techniques such as e-mail, online, in-person interviews, texting and instant messaging, as well as written questionnaires to reach prospective respondents. Again, technology helps give more control back to consumers so they can respond at times convenient to their schedules.

What's the key to couching your survey questions to yield constructive results?

Formulation of the questions used in studies we field has gone through a number of variations and vetting until we have come upon a structure we're comfortable with. It is a simplistic use of language that leaves little room for misinterpretation by the panelists. They key is to ensure that the intent of the question is understood.

Your recent Audio Device Usage survey raised some eyebrows when it found that AM/FM usage has declined from notice you found less usage for AM/FM, Were you surprised at the findings?

The decline you're referring is based in a scattering of listening by consumers to other distribution channels. Traditional radio benefits from these new channels and some of that lost AM/FM band listening is captured on other devices. That was the point of the "Device Study."

These new alternatives (Internet radio, mobile, mp3 players, etc.) are increasingly being used by the public ... and the radio industry knows this. Personalization and control afford today's audio listener a number of options.

I should again remind your readers that while the overall average terrestrial time-spent-listening has fallen a bit, a growing number of people are listening to AM/FM simulcast online and when that audience is added back to terrestrial listening, the true picture of listening to traditional radio can be appreciated.

How often you recommend repeating a survey such as Media Usage to gauge whether the trending has changed?

Keep in mind that this survey, as well as many of the others we do, was commissioned by a client interested a comprehensive picture of how media is being consumed. If the client fields an update in six months or a year, we will publish portions of that update.

For those studies that Bridge Ratings conducts on its own, we'll typically go back into market at six-month intervals, especially these days where there are rapid changes in the media environment, lifestyle change and technology improvements. We'd do another field study by asking the same questions to determine if there have been any significant changes.

There are some cases -- especially recently -- where we'd conduct the same study as soon as every three months in order to truly capture the changing landscape of media usage. For example, if we want to better understand the impact of the iPad, it's rapid adoption could dictate more frequent studies.

Yet Bridge just did an iPad survey. Wouldn't the results be entirely predictable because you'd be polling the early adapters who would generally be overtly positive of it?

You're exactly right in that we wanted to learn the pre-release behavior of early iPad adopters. We wanted to publish the initial perceptions and usage patterns of early adopters. In the case of the iPad, there was strong interest from the computer industry in learning more about early perceptions of the device. (The survey is now posted at www.bridgeratings.com.)

Back to the Media Usage survey: Put on your programmer's hat again. What actions would you, as a programmer, take after reading this survey?

It's clear by the study that people are still listening to terrestrial radio. As a programmer, I'd continue to strive to perfect the on-air product to make it as listenable and entertaining as possible.

Then, I'd discuss with management how we could get the resources that would enable the station to distribute our programming on as many different platforms and devices as possible. Whether it be podcasting, mobile or online streaming, I'd want to make our brand as pervasive as possible so our content was provided in as many of these new channels as our listeners need them to be. This would be the key take-back from the "Device Study" we just published: the industry's health is directly tied to these devices.

Finally, you're currently at the NAB. What's the mood of those attending ...and do you believe that they "get it" when it comes to extending the brand on multiple media platforms?

Generally, the mood has been very positive. The people I've spoken to are very bullish that things will continue to get better, although that view tends to vary depending on market size.

There is a lot of chatter in the hallways about terrestrial radio taking the next big step to supporting the digital side of its business. It is clear that there is revenue to be earned through digital solutions and plenty of excellent providers to help broadcast access this revenue. There's going to be a $1.6 billion dollar pool to dip into by 2020. Radio must take the lead today in order to be capable of competing.

The industry truly is at a crossroads; ownership and management are facing compelling competition for these dollars, which are being siphoned over to digital channels. Traditional radio cannot rest on its laurels and expect to be able to effectively compete in this new era.

Traditional radio has the great potential of its content expertise and vast reach to help leverage its business over the next important five years.