Sometime this week Apple Computer customers will download the 25th billion App for iPhone or iPad.

That’s a lot.

If you are curios as to how many that is go the the apple page here and there is a counter that shows how many Apps are being downloaded each second.

It’s amazing.

Roy Williams is a marketing genius.  I have spoken of him before. His best skill is in explaining why things work.

Here are some of his thoughts on the failed concept of buying Radio by gross rating points or GRPs.

If you wish to read his full article click here.

“GRPs can be used to calculate cost but they were never intended to be used as an indicator of advertising efficacy or efficiency.

Bad radio ads fail because they say nothing of consequence to the listener.

Good radio ads fail because they are scheduled to reach too many people with too little repetition. Radio scheduling decisions guided by a consideration of Gross Rating Points are virtually guaranteed to reach too many people with too little repetition (frequency.)

The average radio ad needs to be heard by the same listener at least 3 times within 7 nights sleep, week after week after week. Don’t skip weeks. Sleep erases advertising.”

There is a rather interesting debate happening in Washington, DC that enlightened me to an idea for future debates.

There is significant and warranted concerns that American legislators have become controlled by special interest and their money.  Even if they are not, the perception is hard to escape sometimes. In the reality of the cost of campaigns, it does put them in some tricky positions.

Take the case of LightSquared and their attempt to get the FCC to approve a previously granted use of bandwidth in the Radio spectrum.   Here’s what happened.  A few years ago the company came up with a concept of being able to use existing airwaves to deliver internet access to every location in America, including the rural markets and extreme remote locations like the Grand Canyon.

The FCC granted them temporarily permission to test the concept.  Armed with this apparent government approval of their idea, the company raised billions and used it to develop their concept.  At the same time, that same government preached about the need to a) make broadband more readily available to rural communities  and b) develop technologies to prevent a predicted shortage of bandwidth.  LightSquared appeared to have solved these issues with their technology.

When the time came to grant final approval for full use of the spectrum, special interest politics apparently won the day.  Sen. Grassely, from a state with a large rural population in Iowa, stalled the process presumably over the concerns of the strong GPS lobby group lead by John Deere.  John Deere sells tractors with important GPS devices and they argue that LightSquared technology might interfere with their existing product.  LightSquared argues that the GPS services could install a simple filter to prevent any such interference.

The argument is complicated to be sure and one might question whether Sen. Grassely is acting in the best interest of his constituents or his contributors.

So here is what I thought about to improve our democracy.

Let both sides pitch their stories to the people.  Yep set up a YouTube or video TV channel and allow both sides to present their case and have actual on line voting to let Americans decide.  It might take a bit of time to orchestrate such a concept but it is where we should consider going to as a true democracy.

Imagine if the developers of  LightSquared were allowed to present their story any way they choose to and then the opposition could do the same.  Then like ‘American Idol,” we, the public, vote.

It might make our elected representatives more likely to act on their constituents behalf as they were elected to do.

“Radio sucks.”

Yea it’s a refrain we hear a lot. We also hear stuff like, “The Yankees suck.”  And it’s usually from Yankee fans even when the team is in first place.  It’s a love/hate relationship that is hard to explain.

For example, a few years ago, the Chicago Bears were on their way to the Super Bowl, but if you asked fans about their quarterback, Rex Grossman, they would overwhelmingly say, “he sucks.”  Yet he was only the second man in the history of the team to lead them to the promised land!  Yet at the end of the day, they wish the could go back there with anyone at the helm.

The same appears to be the case with Radio today.  The perception is people are dissatisfied with Radio but the reality is a bit different.  In fact, when it comes to listeners and their favorite Radio station “the overwhelming majority of listeners are satisfied with their P1 station,” according to a survey of hundreds of Radio listeners by Mark Kassof.

In fact Kassof concluded, “Nearly half  say they’re “100% satisfied” with the station they listen to most. Another third give it a “four” on our five-point satisfaction scale…meaning they’re mostly satisfied:”

One of the reasons for this disparity is passion and emotion.  People feel deeply about their sports teams and the same is true of their favorite Radio station.  Every little thing tends to set you off when love is involved.

That’s why in Radio we like to say, we suck so good.

Definition of P1 is the station a person listens to the most.

Rural equipment dealers across the country feel pretty positive about 2012 even after a strong 2011.

Rural Lifestyle Dealer magazine surveyed more than 130 rural focused dealers and found only 16% of them were forecasting a dip in their sales after a record 2011.

The dealers listed Utility Vehicles and under 40 HP tractors as the two categories they were anticipating as growth drivers.

The biggest concern about 2012 to the dealers was rising health care costs for employees and low sales margins.

The magazine concluded, ‘The general economic outlook for rural America is strengthening, thanks to high commodity prices that have farmers flush with cash. Successful “buy local” campaigns are also keeping consumer dollars closer to home, with more people looking to do business at independent local stores and banks.”

Simon Sinek would like you to answer the question Why?

He has published his new book, “Start With Why.”  In it, he expounds upon his memorable talk on TED.  In that speech, he explains the reason behind Apple Computer’s success, tells an interesting story about the Wright brothers and gives insight into Martin Luther King Jr’s leadership style.

He suggests people will buy from you, follow you and work for you if you they believe the same thing you believe. So what do you believe?

Health food for thought.

I have a new friend in the media world.  Her name is Eileen Keller.  Eileen runs a couple of companies- Ideality and Blitz Media Labs.

She has two jobs. She plans and places media for certain advertisers but she also trains people about the art of media planning.  Her training programs are rigorous four day affairs.

She immerses her students in all media.  Spending nearly full days on individual media alternatives like Radio, TV, Print, Internet etc.  It’s like a four year college degree, you earn in a less than a week.

Here’s the interesting part.  Eileen’s students do not work for advertising agencies.  They are the client direct representatives.  It’s usually an entire marketing department.

Yesterday, I blogged about the new sales process that often times leaves the sales person out of the loop.  That’s what this sounds like to me.

Granted Eileen insists her client’s are mostly individuals who need to learn as much as they can about media so they can ask the right questions of their agencies, but it also should lead agencies to ask themselves are they providing enough insight to their clients?

The clients are seeking knowledge so they can ask the agencies the right questions and be certain they are being treated fairly.  They, like many corporations, are not relying or trusting the usual vendors to supply them this information.  They are seeking it out on their own.

Its accountability as well but it also reeks of more change afoot.

Change. Information. Learning. Growing.

I recently had the privilege of visiting with the newest celebrity of the large sales force consultants, Matt Dixon.

I of course have written before about his brilliant book, “The Challenger Sale.”  Since then Mr. Dixon has been a rising star as he attempts to reshape the sales departments at some of America’s largest concerns.  In fact, he only works directly with companies whose sales exceed one billion dollars.  What was he doing talking to me?

Just being a nice guy and I appreciate it.

Dixon said the reason his program is resonating so much is because with the vast presence of research in everybody’s hands and easily accessibility via the internet, sales people are being left out of the purchasing cycle. This is disturbing to many of the country’s largest concerns.

Recently Forbes and CNBC have featured articles about Dixon and his co author Brent Adamson.  In his call with me, he explained that sales organizations used to “focus on building this Superman seller who succeeded via relationships.”  That strategy is flawed.

What he emphasized is the importance of the Challenger sales type, which he also assured me can be taught to nearly all sellers.

He outlined the Challenger’s M.O.- Challengers are defined by the ability to do three things: teach by bringing new insights into the conversation with the customer, tailor the message to fit the client’s needs, and take control of the sales conversation.

More to come from this fascinating author.

Spoiler Alert: Today’s blog contain significant discussion of the plot and ending of the movie, “The Artist.”  See movie first before reading or read, then see it in a different light.

First the movie is nominated for a well deserved Oscar.  It is a courageous creative endeavor. Who would have thought to make a black and white movie with no known stars and no talking. And pull it off in a very entertaining way.

It’s a silent movie about silent movies, but it is really about so much more.  It’s a metaphor for all people and industries that resist change and technological advancements.    The main character in the movie is a very established and extremely popular star of the silent movie era, but he refuses to speak in the movies.  He watches his world slowly collapse around him emotionally and financially as he refuses to accept the upcoming talkies. It is easy to imagine the reluctant silent movie star’s resistance to make a talkie, as Radio’s challenge with digital media.

There are numerous moments when it should have been obvious that it was time to make good with the new and the young stars of movies with sound.  The silent star refuses to embrace the emerging technology and his world collapses.

There are interesting montages in the movie that show his influence and how his silent movies are being echoed in the new form. He also creates a masterpiece of creativity in his last silent flick but it is too late for anyone to care.  He has allowed others to hijack his world.

Complete humiliation finally sets in and in more symbolic scenes the former star’s world comes tumbling down.  I couldn’t help but consider Radio’s initial reaction to Facebook and social media.  A form of communication we could have owned.

The movie can also be viewed in a personal light. How many times have we resisted change to our detriment?  Is there a new initiative in your company you are ignoring hoping it goes away?  Are you making the most of the new world order?

In the end, the star finally makes the leap into modernity.   In fact, he finds a bit of a compromise by dancing with the day’s top talkie star.  Recently, Radio has decided to  dance with the latest star of media world.

Are you dancing with the thing that threatens you?

I remember getting into a heated discussion with my Statistics teacher in high school.  Ya, believe it or not, me challenging authority.

Well the topic was weather forecasts.  She was trying to explain that the weather man used different sources of data to determine likelihoods based on conditions to determine the chance of rain or the probability.

I disputed the point simply to be argumentative and to impress cute Jeannie Mitros in the front row. Anyway my argument was there is always a 50% chance of rain.  It either does or it doesn’t.  Two possible outcomes. 50% chance of either one happening.

Well we wasted most of the class period on this discussion and though I now have a better feel for probability since watching the stats change on ESPN coverage of Texas Hold ‘em, I still think most Americans are bamboozled by stats every day.

You tend to relate so much to yourself and your sphere of influence, you find it hard to believe the whole world doesn’t look the same way.  How many clients have said to you, well “I don’t do that.”

Which translates into “well then no one does.”

It’s like the phenomenon that occurs after you buy a new car. You swear no one has one like yours until you buy it.  Then you can’t stop identifying them on the street.

I was wrong about the probability thing, of course and so are you when you think everyone has your same car or eats at same restaurants or buys the same brand of whatever. Or that ‘everyone’ has an iPhone.

True not everyone is listening to the Radio. And true not everyone is on Social Media, Facebook or Pandora.

But the statistics show people are using both and often at the same time. Is there some synergy there with the two mediums or should we continue to beat each other up and argue about the chance of rain?