Should TV News Networks Let Viewers Rate News Quality?

COMMENTARY

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, 6 hours ago

Facebook will now let users rate news on its site when it comes to “quality.” What if TV news networks did the same?

What if -- in real-time -- viewers would see a story, or some opinion, on TV -- and register their thumbs, up, down, or sideways? Don’t get your hopes up.

Facebook's efforts -- like those of Google -- comes with renewed calls for “human monitors” to look at advertising and other content to determine appropriateness.

“There’s too much sensationalism, misinformation and polarization in the world today,” Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO, wrote in a post last week. “We decided that having the community determine which sources are broadly trusted would be the objective.”

For many, Facebook’s efforts might be applauded -- broadly -- for what it wants to do around “news quality.” The problem is there remains a big gap in those who make this determination. Can average users employ the same analytic skills as veteran journalists -- finding legitimate news reports that give fair treatment to all sides of an issue?

You may hate media and journalists and call them biased. But putting news judgement in the hands of the average news consumer will only muddy the works even more.

Plus, Facebook is now trimming news content -- legitimate and otherwise -- in an effort to give users more of what it wants from friends and family content. For a long time, Facebook denied it was a “news” media organization. It wants to lean back and be a “platform” -- a distribution vehicle.

But considering what it has admitted to and what happened a year ago -- Russian troll farms plying content or advertising disguised as news -- it isn’t totally out of the woods. The social network has no choice but to act, sometimes, like a TV news network or newspaper.

With all the outcry over fake news, Facebook said it was emailing notifications to 677,775 people in the United States that they had interacted with Russian propaganda accounts around the time of the 2016 election.

Traditional media organizations -- TV networks, magazines, radio and newspapers -- know that self-introspection and analysis can be healthy. Many have employed a journalistic “ombudsman” -- an outside editorial professional -- to critique a publication’s news reporting.

TV news networks might say they don’t need viewers to register judgements on specific news story; there is a simpler response: TV viewership.

The good news is that digital media is pushing new approaches to getting user engagement for all content -- news and advertising. Now we just need to figure out how valuable those engagements really are.

Radio Recommended!

Radio Ink

By

 Bob McCurdy

 -

January 21, 2018

1

    

I’ve always found that the best way to make a sales point is to have someone else make it for you. Supporting information or an endorsement that comes from independent, well-informed sources is typically more readily accepted as fact.

So what do the following respected media/marketing executives have in common?

— Kate Coultas, JC Penney Senior Manager of Corporate Communications & Public Relations
— Chris Weil, Chairman and CEO of Momentum Worldwide
— Pankaj Kumar, VP of Media Sciences at Comcast
— Mark Fratrik, SVP and Chief Economist at BIA/Kelsey
— Kathy Doyle, EVP of Local Investment at Magna Global
— Gordon Borrell, CEO of Borrell Associates
— Dr. Bradley Vines, Director of Nielsen Consumer NeuroScience, Europe
— Jennifer Hungerbuhler, Carat’s EVP and Managing Director of Local Video and Audio Investment
— Paul Street, USA TouchPoints Director of Global Research
— Sean Bryan, Co-Chief Creative Officer at McCann/New York
— Natalie Swed Stone, U.S. Director, National Audio Investment at OMD.

They are all independent sources who think pretty highly about radio!

Several weeks back, I recapped 2017 articles that focused on the importance of “reach.” While researching that blog, I uncovered positive comments about radio made by these respected marketing executives. When you aggregate all of these quotes on one page, it is quite impressive.

November 2017

“We know people are listening to their local radio stations and they don’t get to fast-forward through the commercials like on TV, so that’s a great place to have more call-to-action messaging going on and letting them know about the sale coming up this weekend and the coupons that we have.”
Kate Coultas, JC Penney Senior Manager of Corporate Communications & Public Relations

“You are more effective. You have the ability to drive sales. If you want to move stuff off the shelves, you go to radio. Radio is in a good place.”
Chris Weil, Chairman and CEO of Momentum Worldwide

September 2017

“Radio is there, radio is staying—and based on the data that Comcast has about the effectiveness of the airwaves— it’s time that you guys get the credit where it’s due.”
Pankaj Kumar, VP of Media Sciences at Comcast

July 2017

“Local radio stations continue to reach a sizable local audience and provide that access to national and local advertisers. When retailers, car dealers, and local restaurants want to reach a large audience announcing a particular promotion or sale, they often turn to radio as part of their advertising mix….It is expected that retailers…and other advertisers…will continue to use radio in this way.”  
Mark Fratrik, SVP and Chief Economist at BIA/Kelsey

“We still get e-mails from listeners telling us how much they like [Magna Global’s ‘Pure Michigan’ radio ad campaign]. This is the perfect example of theater of the mind. You can’t help but see certain images when you hear those spots….We’ve had clients completely walk away from radio and then walk right back. Because it does work and it is effective. They do see a difference in their local business.”
Kathy Doyle, EVP of Local Investment at Magna Global

June 2017

“Everything we’ve read about listening and aging audiences—plus all the digital propaganda—would have us believe that only our grandmother is listening to radio. Turns out the industry’s biggest supporters—the advertisers who foot the bills—aren’t buying it at all….Radio works, and they’re telling us in the latest survey data that radio’s got one helluva ROI.” 
Gordon Borrell, CEO of Borrell Associates

May 2017

“Unlike video, which consumers can look away from, sound can have an influence whether consumers are fully paying attention or not. This is ideal for connecting with non-conscious emotional associations and makes audio a powerful vehicle for developing brands in the mind of the consumer.”
Dr. Bradley Vines, Director of Nielsen Consumer NeuroScience, Europe

April 2017

“Radio has had remarkable stability in terms of listenership. And most importantly, it delivers a strong reach at a very, very efficient price. It’s that personal connection with a local deejay that listeners often form that’s absent from digital audio.”
Carat’s EVP and Managing Director of Local Video and Audio Investment, Jennifer Hungerbuhler

“AM/FM remains ideally suited for in-car audio while people are going about their daily lives and making their shopping decisions.”
USA TouchPoints Director of Global Research, Paul Street

And just this week:

“I think radio continues to be an important part of the mix. It’s a very efficient way to reach your audience with a message, however I would say that we as an industry are not using it as much as we should for brand building. I think, unfortunately, a lot of brands consider radio part of the media mix as a means to push out promotional information instead of a means to build their brand and drive sales. Radio is very good for that. I’ve seen how radio can actually build a brand and can change the way people feel about a brand—not just inform them about promotional information or what’s on sale this week.

“The fact is that very often we feel a brand and understand a brand with our ears first. We need to remind agencies, brands, production agencies, everybody, that radio and audio can be as powerful as any other medium and any other sense to connect with the hearts and minds of customers.”
Co-Chief Creative Officer at McCann/New York, Sean Bryan

“The change in television and video is so much more dramatic than the change occurring in audio. The stability of audio is providing a measure of confidence to clients. The reach message is resonating very powerfully. It is driving much of the audio strategy. Reach is now a valuable commodity and radio is now in a position to be the primary driver. As TV and digital fragment, audio’s position escalates.”
Natalie Swed Stone, U.S. Director, National Audio Investment at OMD

Some accomplished marketing pros have said some great things about the radio medium in the past eight months. These comments can serve to not only reinforce our own belief in our medium, but also provide a kind of “safety net” to those considering the use of radio.

“Endorsements” such as these can provide considerable gravitas to our “why radio” conversations.

Bob McCurdy is The Vice President of Sales for the Beasley Media Group and can be reached at bob.mccurdy@bbgi.com

Millennials Watch More On-Demand Video Than DVR

• by Wayne Friedman , Yesterday

Although millennials still watch a lot of regular TV -- more than two hours a day -- much of their alternative TV watching comes with on-demand viewing rather than traditional time-shifted TV.

In the second quarter of 2017, 18- to-24-year-old viewers had 9% less DVR/time-shifted viewing -- 11 hours and 7 minutes (11:07) per month -- versus the same time period a year earlier, according to Video Advertising Bureau’s analysis of Nielsen data.

Those viewers ages 25-34 are watching 8% less at 17 hours/26 minutes, with viewers ages 35-49 down to 23 hours/44 minutes -- 6% lower.

At the same time, the VAB notes that viewers 18-24 are watching 35% more “video on a computer” -- at 34 hours/15 minutes per month -- with viewers 25-34 watching 28% more, at 33 hours/27 minutes.

When it comes to watching “video on a smartphone” -- viewers 18-24 are watching 61% more -- at 7 hours/19 minutes per month -- with viewers 25-34 watching 113% more to 6 hours/11 minutes.

Not to be left out, VAB also says all demographics -- young and old -- have seen rising usage of video on computers and smartphones. Overall, there was a 39% increase to 23 hours/31 minutes in watching “video on computers,” with a 89% bump on “video on smartphones” to 4 hours/45 minutes per month.

The Video Advertising Bureau is a TV-video advertising advocacy group comprised of major TV broadcast and cable network companies, telecommunications, national cinema companies and other national video distributors.

 

Global Advertising Forecast To Rise Nearly 5% In 2018

• by Wayne Friedman , 5 hours ago

Worldwide advertising is expected to rise nearly 4.7% to $572 billion this year -- helped by the Winter Olympics, the FIFA World Cup and the U.S. midterm elections.

Looking at 96 markets, WARC, a London-based ad/marketing research company, says big markets will see gains, with North America climbing 5%, Asia-Pacific 6% and Western Europe adding 2.6%.

Central and Eastern Europe will see some of the strongest improvements -- rising 8.4%. Latin America will be the second-fastest-growing area at 7%. Advertising will drop across the Middle East and African countries -- 4.1% -- but the research company says this will be less than in previous years.

In 2017, WARC says global advertising gained 3% to $546 billion, a decline from the 3.8% increase in 2016.

Mobile advertising witnessed the greatest share gain last year -- up 5.9 percentage points to a a 20.6% share, at $112 billion. The U.S. has 45% of the global mobile advertising market.

Online desktop advertising was down 2% in share to a 18.3% or $103 billion.

TV remains the largest media channel -- although it has dipped 1.5 percentage points to a 36.5% share, reaching $199.5 billion. TV advertising outweighs online video spending by a ratio of six to one.

Print declined 2.2 percentage share points to $71.5 billion. Both out-of-home and radio dipped slightly to a 5.7% share -- to $32.6 billion each. Cinema was steady at $4 billion.

 

 

QUARTERLY REPORT

NetflixSuccessLessensNetNeutralityFears

Now that it boasts one of television’s largest audiences, Netflix isn’t spending much time worrying about the demise of the government rules that once protected it. With millions of subscribers still flocking to its service, Netflix figures internet providers are unlikely to do anything that might alienate large numbers of their own customers who also turn to Netflix for trendy shows such as Stranger Things, The Crown and Black Mirror.

By Michael Liedtke

The Associated Press, January 22, 2018 5:35 PM EST

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Netflix once fought fiercely for net neutrality, fearing that its online video service would suffer if internet providers were free to discriminate against it.
But now that it boasts one of television’s largest audiences, Netflix isn’t spending much time worrying about the demise of the government rules that once protected it.

 

With millions of subscribers still flocking to its service, Netflix figures internet providers are unlikely to do anything that might alienate large numbers of their own customers who also turn to Netflix for trendy shows such as “Stranger Things,” ″The Crown and “Black Mirror.”

“Netflix’s fortress is so strong now that net neutrality has become background noise for them,” says GBH Insights analyst Daniel Ives.

 

The Trump-era Federal Communications Commission officially repealed net-neutrality rules in mid-December. Those regulations barred internet providers like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon from slowing or blocking customer access to apps and sites, or from setting up paid “fast lanes” for favored companies. The rules have been a big deal for smaller startups, as Netflix used to be.

But now Netflix has more than 117 million subscribers worldwide, including nearly 55 million in the U.S., according to the company’s fourth-quarter earnings report, released Monday. The service picked up 8.3 million of those worldwide subscribers — a quarterly record — in the October-December period last year. That included a gain of 2 million in the U.S.

The performance blew past the projections of Netflix’s own management and stock market analysts. It was especially striking given a 10 percent price increase on the company’s most popular subscription plan in the U.S.

Investors apparently aren’t much worried about the end of net neutrality, either. The company’s stock soared 8 percent to $246.11 in Monday’s extended trading. That positions Netflix’s market value to surpass $100 billion for the first time in Tuesday’s regular trading session.

Emboldened by its success, Netflix now plans to spend up to $8 billion on its programming line-up this year, up from $6 billion last year.

“Our goal is to entertain people,” Netflix wrote Monday. “We are thrilled to be able to do that at great scale.”

When Influencers Are A Good Influence For The Wrong Reasons

Commentary

• by Cory Treffiletti , Featured Contributor, January 17, 2018

A few weeks ago I wrote about being authentic and genuine, both as a brand and a person. Unfortunately, there’s a downside to always being authentic, because that can lead to incredible rudeness.  How do you balance “being yourself” with being professional in the workplace?
In December, I was doing some research into the influencer space. I reached out to a number of people who claim or appear to be influencers in tech.

I found three kinds of responses.  One: people who responded and were interested in a conversation.  Two: people who didn’t respond and simply ignored the outreach.
Three was a unique response, from someone who shall not be named.  This person had an auto responder on his email stating, “I am on vacation for the next two weeks and when I return I will be deleting everything from my inbox and starting over.  If your outreach is valuable, feel free to send me a new email after x date and I will determine if I am going to respond.”

This kind of response is obviously very genuine — he doesn’t want to spend the new year getting caught up on email and would rather move forward.  I get that, and to some extent I even praise the sentiment. 

That being said, I take issue with the way the auto response was worded.  Anyone taking the time to send emails believes their email has some level of importance — and he questioned them in a condescending way, saying that he feels his time is more valuable than theirs. This may be genuine, but in a business environment I consider this incredibly rude.

What’s the right way to handle a situation such as this?  How do you say you’re clearly trying to better manage things in the new year, while not being unkind in the ways you  respond to people?   I posted this question on LinkedIn and some people felt I was being harsh, while others agreed with me: If you put your name out there, and you make it easy for people to reach out to you, then it’s your responsibility to be willing to respond and engage back.  If you want to start over, then pull down your email and make people work harder to get a hold of you!

These days there’s almost implicit permission for people to be rude to one another, and it bums me out.  I’m hoping the year ahead provides a better environment where people are more willing to think before they speak.

This has to happen in interpersonal relations and I think it should also happen in business.  I know I may not be perfect, but I do take the time to respond to the majority of emails I receive.  I tend to ignore the ones that clearly had me on a list and are simply batch-blasting me and a hundred other people.  Those automated outreaches tend not to come from a real person, so I don’t feel so bad about not responding.  Much of the time, though, there’s a real person on the other end, who deserves a response just as much as anyone else.

I wonder if the influencer who wrote that auto-response is reading this column?  Whether he knows it or not, he influenced me for sure: to be a better person by simply not emulating what he was doing.  I guess something good can come from the unlikeliest of places!

AI Won't Be Biggest Thing Since Sliced Bread -- But WILL Change TV Advertising

Commentary

• by Dave Morgan , Featured Contributor, Yesterday

To be clear, I believe that AI is way over-hyped these days, particularly for the ad industry. For sure, the capacity for computer systems to become smarter, faster, more predictive and accurate as a result of AI techniques like machine learning will have an important and lasting impact on advertising.
However, to believe that we will all wake up in three years and find that our lives as advertising and media professionals will have been transformed by AI is ludicrous. The impacts of self-learning computers will take many years to really manifest themselves. Besides, it’s hard to imagine that an industry like advertising, embracing basic empiricism and data-based decision-making, is going to be changed very much or very quickly just because computers will be able to give people better numbers sooner.

That said, however, I do believe that the TV ad industry, where I spend my time these days, will actually see some not-insignificant effects from AI in the near term. Here are two examples that jump to mind:

Digital-like attribution. Today, most TV ad attribution to sales is based on mix models that rely heavily on correlation and regression-based models. They look to the past, not the future, cover long time frames, and are primarily useful only for strategic media and marketing allocation decisions.
With AI’s capacity to run increasingly sophisticated predictive models against massive disparate data sets of media exposures and consumer actions and purchasing, linked at the impression and household level, we are already starting to see media attribution at the campaign level with causation provable at levels more akin to how the pharmaceutical industry works. Thanks to AI, we can now build and run powerful synthetic tests and controls on campaigns. Finally, TV is  now able to be compared to digital when it comes to ad attribution.

TV plans and buys that actually match up. It’s a running joke in TV advertising that what’s planned is never bought. How can it? TV plans are created months and quarters before campaigns are executed. At that point, no one even knows what the shows will be. Instead, the industry falls back on defining everything with really simple — and extraordinarily blunt — audience metrics like demographics, gross rating points, networks, days, dayparts and average rating points.
That approach was fine for the TV world of the 1980s dominated by three broadcast networks. It’s worthless today.

Buying demo-based GRPs in today’s fragmented TV world, where 75+% of national viewing occurs on episodes with a rating below 0.5, is a recipe for buying massive amounts of wasted frequency. Campaign plan optimizers powered by artificial intelligence today can actually evaluate and optimize against potential audience duplication at the household level for every potential combination of spots on all networks across all dayparts.

To put this into perspective: There are 250,000 different ad spots shown on all Nielsen-rated national networks every day. The number of potential different audience reach and frequency combinations that could be generated by those spots over a three-week campaign is N to the power of 34.
How big is that? That number is greater than the number of atoms in the known universe. However, an AI-powered plan generator — with the right data available — can spin those calculations in less than 10 minutes. Most importantly, the AI-generated plan is likely to deliver 25% more reach on average than legacy plans, and probably twice the ROI.

Not ready to talk AI yet? Don’t like acronyms invading your business? No worries. Most of this work will go on beneath the surface of the systems that you use. All you need to worry about is demanding the double ROI that AI might bring you.
What do you think?

Helping to Simply Define What ATSC 3.0 Means

We felt the importance of helping define terms of the new age of TV for the many subscribers of LeNoble's Media Sales Insights. Once such term has called into question by our readers its meaning.
Philip Jay LeNoble, MBA, Ph.D. CA

ATSC 3.0, in Layman’s Terms
 

A few weeks ago we shared the ATSC 3.0 video and a brief description about WHAT it is, but really, it’s a bunch of detailed, techie, nerd talk. What does it really mean for you, in layman’s terms?

Here are the main points on the ATSC 3.0 transition:

·       4K Ultra HD Video!

·       High dynamic range high definition

·       1 +4 surround sound and immersive audio

·       Way more multicasting! There will be over 100 sub-channels per main channel (the system has much more efficient compression), which means potentially hundreds of over the air channels per market

·       More reliable and robust transmissions won’t be prone to interference (this means no more break ups!)

·       Indoor reception will be MUCH easier with an antenna

·       Interactive, the view can control the viewing experience and will allow two way communications with the broadcaster, choose viewing angle on sports, etc.

·       Targeted advertising, this will be great for businesses to sell their products to particular demographics. [This will allow for in-market zone specific ad concentration as well as dynamic ad insertion which is targeting specific consumers within a market with copy precise words affecting consumer desires. An example in a marketplace would be an ad for pizza with mushrooms and/or anchovies will be different in another part of the same market where anchovies are not of interest. PJL]

·       Metadata- more detailed show info, actor bios, all the fun background info you might be interested in knowing, but don’t want to spend time looking up!

·       Immersive and VR experience

Ultimately, there is a lot of buzz with the transition, but it will be a lengthy process. There are currently no broadcasters transmitting in 3.0 and they won’t be until probably later in 2018 at the earliest. It will all depend on when station decides to make the switch and even then, the consumer will need a device with a 3.0 tuner chip set.

For the most part, broadcasters will continue to transmitting signal in both 1.0 and 3.0. Once 3.0 TV’s hit the market, there will be a lot of people who will be able to access these features IF the broadcast station is transmitting in 3.0. It will be an interesting transition because there is not a harsh turn off deadline for 1.0, it’s not like there will be one day where all of a sudden there will no longer be 1.0 and everyone will be broadcasting in 3.0. That won’t be happening! Basically, it’s consumer adoption for 3.0 and how people decide they want their content delivered to them. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out, and we will be sure to keep you updated!

 

NBC Sees $1.4 Billion in Ad Sales for Super Bowl, Winter Games

Bloomberg

By 

Gerry Smith

January 11, 2018, 12:26 PM MST Updated on January 11, 2018, 1:14 PM MST

• Olympics ad prices are up from last winter games, network says
• Network markets broadcast, online viewers as ‘total audience’

NBC expects $1.4 billion in ad revenue from the Super Bowl and the Winter Olympics, the payoff for its huge investment in sports programming.

The figure includes $900 million for the Olympics in South Korea, which start Feb. 9. Ad prices are running higher than the 2014 winter games in Sochi, Russia, NBC executives said Thursday on a conference call. Comcast Corp.’s entertainment division is charging more than $5 million for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl, in line with the past couple of years.

Ratings for live sports, including the Olympics and pro football, have declined in an era when viewers have so many choices for entertainment, from Snapchat to YouTube. But they still let advertisers reach tens of millions of viewers at once, and networks compete fiercely for the rights to big games. NBC has the Olympics through 2032 as part of a $12 billion deal, and it’s one of three networks that will take turns carrying the Super Bowl through 2022.

Fox, which aired the Super Bowl last year, reaped $500 million in ad sales from the game, selling 30-second spot for about $5 million each. That game, a wild comeback victory by the New England Patriots over the Atlanta Falcons, drew an estimated audience of 111.3 million viewers, down slightly from the year before.

Super Bowl advertisers haven’t expressed concern about ratings declines for regular-season NFL games, said Dan Lovinger, executive vice president for ad sales at NBC Sports Group, and are enthusiastic about the Feb. 4 telecast. The average audience for a regular season game declined 9.7 percent from 2016, according to Nielsen data.

Transcendent Game

“The game almost transcends the season,” Lovinger said. “It’s the only environment where viewers admit they look forward as much to the commercials as the content itself.”

NBC’s Super Bowl inventory isn’t sold out, though only a “a handful” spots are left. Automakers and Hollywood studios are two of the biggest advertisers this year. NBC is also selling digital-only advertising packages for the game for the first time. 

While the TV audience for the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro declined, NBC’s ad strategy for the upcoming games relies on what the network calls “total audience delivery” in case more people watch online. For example, if the network guarantees an advertiser 1 million Olympics viewers over the games, it can meet that promise with 800,000 TV viewers and 200,000 digital viewers, or some other combination.

“This gives us a little flexibility to take advantage of those changes in viewership habits,” Lovinger said. “A viewer is really a viewer.”

The network has also signed an accord that will let Snap Inc. share clips of NBC’s Olympics coverage, similar to a deal for the 2016 games.

NBC said this is the first time in history that one media company has had both events so close together.

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel to

Radio Ink

 

 

The Hispanic Radio Conference is pleased to announce that FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel will deliver the opening keynote at the ninth annual conference, being presentedMarch 13-14 in Miami at the Intercontinental at Doral.

Referred to as a practical visionary, Rosenworcel has been called "unbelievably brilliant" by former U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller. She "sees things out in the future, and she sees how they’ll intersect," Rockefeller said.

Rosenworcel will share some of that practical knowledge and visionary perspective in what is sure to be one of the highlights of the Hispanic Radio Conference.

"In a year that has seen new leadership at the FCC, the rollback of net neutrality rules, changing ownership regulations, and the elimination of the main studio rule, among other decisions, no presentation could be more timely or insightful," said Radio Ink Publisher Deborah Parenti. "And especially in our current climate, the opportunity to have a woman whose command of the issues transcends all else - to have a powerful woman like that in the room - makes this even more exciting."

Jessica Rosenworcel returned as a commissioner to the FCC on August 11, 2017 after being nominated by President Trump and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate. Previously, Rosenworcel served as an FCC commissioner from May 11, 2012 to January 3, 2017 following her nomination by President Obama and unanimous confirmation.

Rosenworcel brings a decade and a half of public and private sector communications law experience to her position at the FCC. This experience has shaped her belief that in the 21st century strong communications markets can foster economic growth and security, enhance digital age opportunity, and enrich our civic life.

Before joining the FCC, Rosenworcel served as senior communications counsel for the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, under the leadership of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV. She previously served in the same role on the committee under the leadership of Senator Daniel K. Inouye.

Before joining the staff of the committee, she served as legal adviser to former FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps. She also served at the agency as legal counsel to the chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau and as an attorney-adviser in the Wireline Competition Bureau.

The Hispanic Radio Conference, March 13-14 in Miami, is the only conference dedicated solely to Hispanic radio. Now in its ninth year, the conference attracts the industry’s key leadership in management, sales, and programming, whose combined audience reaches approximately 95 percent of the 59+ million Hispanics in this country.