No one is suggesting that Dua Lipa or Britney would have done them without him. But active music consumers today are younger---Dua and Britney's fanbase, not Elton's (many of whom hate both of those remixes).
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Survey Shows Gen-Z Not Listening To Radio
- Thread starter Kelly A
- Start date
- Status
I like the Dua Lipa remix, not so much the Britney one.
In 1991, MTV was all ready to split into 3 channels for different genres. For some reason in late 1992/early 1993, it fell apart.
I loved the "Cold Heart" mix from the moment I heard it. But it was lightning in a bottle, the Britney mix was terrible.
My take is they could see the writing on the wall that the music was splintering, and the viewership was more interested in reality programming than non-stop music videos. This was at a time when MTV would broadcast from spring break and VH-1 was doing music documentaries. At the time, BET, CMT, and TNN were all independently owned. Viacom would buy MTV, then CMT & TNN, and later BET. But the era of music videos as a TV format was over.
Or just entertaining content. Waiting around to see if your favorite music video was going to be played worked for awhile, but it wasn't sustainable. People wanted to be entertained. VH1 really hit the ball out of the park with "Behind the Music."
Videos on TV isn't a whole lot different than music on the radio. If they're playing songs you like, it's good for a while. If not, you're probably gone. It's part of the problem with why Gen Z isn't listening to the radio. They want what they want when they want it, and they want it without interruption and for free.
The Elton fans already had them. The audience streaming them were attracted almost entirely by the fans of the other half of the duet performers,
They were technically Elton songs, though, as his name was first listed.
This thread is spinning its wheels big time.
Back to Gen Z, here's an article about a group of people who are between Gen Y and Gen Z
Keep in mind as well that the heyday of MTV and VH-1 when they actually showed music videos a majority of the time, and shows like "Friday Night Videos" on NBC were popular, pre-dates the emergence of widely available internet. Back then people used to watch/listen for their favorite videos and catch the countdown shows to see if their favorites were still in the top slots (and were still waiting for their favorite songs to be played on the radio back then so they could record them to cassette). After the masses got internet access, they could watch any video they wanted to, whenever they wished to - and even build their own playlists.
Last edited:
Yet another label!
I'm not really sure where I fit in. I hesitate to call myself a "Millennial" — although I guess that's what I am — because I feel like I don't have much in common with most of them.
In fact, if I were to identify with any generation, it would be the Boomers, despite being almost 30 years younger than the youngest, because I feel like I have more in common with them than anyone else, and I'm more interested in that generation's culture, music and technology.
In other words, I feel like I was born 40 years late....
c
Here's an early boomer song:
I don't think you can call yourself a "Boomer" unless you own one house, and then own two more houses, and rent them out to everyone else to fund your two annual cruises.
Ha...
That's somewhat of a stereotype I think; there are many Boomers who don't own houses, nor do they go on expensive annual cruises.
That being said, Boomers, as a group, are statistically more likely to own a house or two and have enough disposable income for annual cruises than subsequent generations, particularly as they enter retirement, and especially for those lucky enough to have had decent, well paying jobs, so I guess you have a point.
But who's to say Gen-Z won't surpass the Boomers's collective wealth one day? Or perhaps some other, as yet unnamed generation that comes along?
Anyway, back to the topic, I think...
I feel like Gen-Z doesn't listen to the radio perhaps because it doesn't really offer what they want (on-demand with no ads). Indeed, I don't think it's even possible for radio to be on-demand, even online streams, is it?
The one thing still going for radio is that it's free to listen to with no artificial restrictions, which is more than can be said for the various streaming services (though most services offer a free tier, they tend to only include a subset of what's available at a lower sound quality with ads,
Oh, well. I guess this is the future, which is kind of bleak looking for any broadcast technology or music delivery medium that isn't internet-based.
c
That's somewhat of a stereotype I think; there are many Boomers who don't own houses, nor do they go on expensive annual cruises.
That being said, Boomers, as a group, are statistically more likely to own a house or two and have enough disposable income for annual cruises than subsequent generations, particularly as they enter retirement, and especially for those lucky enough to have had decent, well paying jobs, so I guess you have a point.
But who's to say Gen-Z won't surpass the Boomers's collective wealth one day? Or perhaps some other, as yet unnamed generation that comes along?
Anyway, back to the topic, I think...
I feel like Gen-Z doesn't listen to the radio perhaps because it doesn't really offer what they want (on-demand with no ads). Indeed, I don't think it's even possible for radio to be on-demand, even online streams, is it?
The one thing still going for radio is that it's free to listen to with no artificial restrictions, which is more than can be said for the various streaming services (though most services offer a free tier, they tend to only include a subset of what's available at a lower sound quality with ads,
Oh, well. I guess this is the future, which is kind of bleak looking for any broadcast technology or music delivery medium that isn't internet-based.
c
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure I wrote this in some thread on this board, but let's face it, keeping track ain't easy, so----
I was born in 1956---the year before the first peak year of the Baby Boom. The second peak was 1961. More people were born in each of the years 1956 through 1964 than were born in any of the Baby Boom years prior.
More than half of the Baby Boomers were 13 or younger for Woodstock.
The first time that the Baby Boom, all of it, was at least 13 years old was 1977.
So a lot of what people default to (Beatles on Ed Sullivan, Vietnam, social unrest, flower power, Woodstock) as Boomer stuff is actually anywhere between "yeah, I remember, but it wasn't anything I was involved in" to "before my time" for half---the larger half---of that generation.
And---this is a new observation, just for this post---what we're up to now has very little in common. The generation itself spans such a vast period of time (1946-1964). From my seat in pretty much the middle, the oldest ones are ten years older than I am and the youngest are eight years younger. 77, 67 and 59 are very different ages.
I was born in 1956---the year before the first peak year of the Baby Boom. The second peak was 1961. More people were born in each of the years 1956 through 1964 than were born in any of the Baby Boom years prior.
More than half of the Baby Boomers were 13 or younger for Woodstock.
The first time that the Baby Boom, all of it, was at least 13 years old was 1977.
So a lot of what people default to (Beatles on Ed Sullivan, Vietnam, social unrest, flower power, Woodstock) as Boomer stuff is actually anywhere between "yeah, I remember, but it wasn't anything I was involved in" to "before my time" for half---the larger half---of that generation.
And---this is a new observation, just for this post---what we're up to now has very little in common. The generation itself spans such a vast period of time (1946-1964). From my seat in pretty much the middle, the oldest ones are ten years older than I am and the youngest are eight years younger. 77, 67 and 59 are very different ages.
That's actually true. About five years ago my wife talked me into going on a Mederterainian cruise that embarked near Rome. We sat at a dinner table full of cruising seniors, who literally paid to live on that boat making the same tour over and over for the better part of nine months. After that, they'd get on another boat, and do the same thing. I asked if they had home bases when they weren't on a cruise. They all said that selling their home(s) and life insurance policies was funding their non-stop cruising lifestyle. Coincidentally, one of them ended up passing away on that cruise. Apparently, these cruise lines have a morgue on board to hang onto the cruiser until their family can pick up the body at one of the ports. I asked if living on the boat, whether any of them take the excursions offered for a price. None of them did because it was too expensive. It seemed like they'd essentially turned the boat into a nice senior living facility. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but I had no idea that was a thing.
One of the folks from our table could be regularly seen on deck with a Sangean portable radio trying to DX.
I think the BBC might struggle with that idea. Everything the BBC puts out on-air on any of its radio stations, whether a documentary, music show, news or anything else, is automatically made available for on-demand listening via BBC Sounds, which is also where you go if you want to stream any of its radio stations. The stations don't even have websites any more, just pages on BBC Sounds. The live streams can be played with, too - you want to hear a song again, or missed a bit of an interview? Just go back a few minutes and hear it again.
If you listen to any BBC radio nowadays, there is very little mention of FM frequencies or live broadcasts, it's very much "on BBC Sounds" all the time. For instance, this recent TV promo for the Gen-Z-targeted BBC Radio 1, which doesn't mention the national FM transmitter network at 97-99 MHz, or even DAB radio, but is just "listen on Sounds".
You can see from the tone and type of content on Sounds (mindfulness playlists, Pride mixes etc) that they are targeting a younger audience who may well no longer even own a radio.
Sure. If you punch into the on-demand for a program at exactly the right moment, you'll hear it live (minus whatever delay is involved getting it to the server and out of your device). If you punch in five minutes after it starts, you're just five minutes behind reality, and so on.
My wife and I have taken to setting the DVR even for things we intend to watch live. If we're a minute or two or more late getting to the TV, we'll just punch "play" on the DVR menu---it will continue to record while we're watching from the beginning. Same basic principle.
- Status