(Uh oh, am I about to light an email fire I can't put out?)

Traditional wisdom says, “Advertise in the newspaper. Everyone reads the newspaper. There are lots of radio stations but only one newspaper.”

The problem with traditional wisdom is that it’s usually more tradition than wisdom.

Take a look at the chart at the top of this page and you’ll see that the total, combined ad revenues for

(1.) the internet with all its banners, pop-ups, co-registration schemes and Google Adwords accounts, plus

(2.) the ad revenues from all the billboards sprinkled across the 3.54 million square miles of these United States, plus

(3.) the combined revenues of all of America’s radio stations

is less than the combined ad revenues of America’s few hundred newspapers.

I hid a big surprise for you in last week’s rabbit hole. Did you see it?

Let me summarize for you what it said:

If you

(1.) make exactly the same offer on radio as in the newspaper, and

(2.) spend exactly the same amount of money with each media,

(3.) across precisely the same span of time,

radio outperforms newspaper nearly14 to 1.

As I explained in the detailed report, we fell into our discovery by accident. Our original plan was to buy newspaper ads since we assumed the newspaper would reach a larger percentage of our target than any other media.

Our assumptions were based on a faulty perception. That’s traditional wisdom for you.

When our test indicated that radio was outperforming newspaper nearly 14 to 1, I began to wonder, “With all the billions of dollars spent in media each year, why has no one ever comparison-tested the media in a series of controlled experiments?”

There I go, assuming again. A bit of research led me to uncover a study conducted 37 years ago (1971) by the Research Committee of the National Advisory Council on Radio in Education. On page 155 I found, “For the test, the manufacturer of a shampoo selected territories in which his sales had been equal and satisfactory over a period of years. An advertising campaign with increased appropriations was prepared, and at the end of the test period, sales increases were used as the gauge of the merit of the medium. In territory No. 1, where newspaper advertising was used, the sales were increased by 3 percent; in territory No. 2, where radio only was used, they were increased 40 percent.”

Gosh. 40 percent versus 3 percent is nearly 14 to 1, right?

Why has there never been a scientifically controlled, nationwide test funded by the radio stations of America?

Frankly, I was comforted to learn that my organization was the second, rather than the first entity to discover that radio outproduces newspaper nearly 14 to 1. If we had been the only people ever to discover that little nugget of information, I would have been plagued by doubt. I'm big enough to admit that my confidence was bolstered by the fact that another organization arrived at virtually the identical conclusion when I was just 13 years old.

But the greater question remains,

“Why has there been no scientifically controlled test?”

I ask the advertising agencies spending all those billions,

“Why has there been no scientifically controlled test?”

I ask the major advertisers of America,

“Why has there been no scientifically controlled test?”

And I ask you the same question in this week’s e-Poll. 

We’re anxious to hear your theory.

Philip Dusenberry once said, “I have always believed that writing advertisements is the second most profitable form of writing. The first, of course, is ransom notes.”

If you want to write, but ransom notes is not your style, get yourself to Austin August 26-27 to learn how to Write for Radio and the Internet, (Yes, the two techniques are virtually identical.) This excellent class is taught by the incomparable Chris Maddock and Jeff Sexton. Tuscan Hall awaits you, friend.

Also on the near horizon: The Wild Fiction Workshop will be remembered with fanfare by future generations. Every student who attends will be published in hardback before Christmas. Arooooooo!

It's happening August 6th and David Freeman and me.

And you?

Yours,

Roy H. Williams